Columbia  (Hnttoersttp 

THE  LIBRARIES 


UNITABIANISM  DEFINED. 


THE 


SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE 


FATHER,  SON  AND  HOLY  GHOST. 


A 

COTJRSE      O  W     LECTTJRES, 

BY 

FREDERICK  A.  FARLEY,  D.D., 

PASTOR     OF      TUE      CHURCH     OF      THE     3AVI00B,      BROOKLYN,     N.      7. 


BOSTOIST: 
■WALKER,  "WISE  &;  c o 3vr:p A:3^T Y. 

1860. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1860,  by 

FREDERICK  A.    FARLEY, 

111  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern 

District  of  New- York. 


JOHN  A.  GRAY, 

Printer  &  Steeeotyper, 
16  and  IS  Jacob  St. 


CONTENTS 


Preface, 5 

LECTFEE    I. 
The  Unity  of  God — the  Trinity, g 

LECTURE    II. 
The  Trinity — Continued, 82 

LECTURE    III. 

Inferiority  and  Subordination  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,       .       58 

LECTURE     IV. 
Same  Subject — Continued, 86 

LECTURE     V. 
Same  Subject — Concluded, 100 

LECTURE    VI. 
Double  Nature  of  Christ  —  Personality  and  Deity  op  the 

Holy  Ghost, 126 

LECTURE    VII. 
Human  Nature, 149 

LECTURE    VIII. 
The  Atonement, 172 

LECTURE    IX. 
The  Atonement — Continued, 191 

LECTURE     X. 
Antiquity  of  Unitarianism — Its  History,  ....     223 


^  liif.4 


PREFACE. 


The  following  Lectures  were  delivered  in  the  spring  of  1859.  They 
were  not  originally  written  out,  but  delivered  orally  after  being  care- 
fully studied,  as  an  advocate  at  the  Bar  speaks  from  his  "  brief"  When, 
therefore,  I  was  requested  by  my  congregation — in  a  spirit  which  made 
my  duty  plain — to  pubhsh  them,  I  found  myself,  should  I  comply,  quite 
likely  to  disappoint  any  readers  who  heard  them,  by  at  least  the  loss 
they  might  feel  of  that  more  fresh  and  vivacious  manner,  which  be- 
longs to  extemporaneous  speech.  Much  as  the  old  dame  felt,  who, 
when  asked  to  sign  a  request  to  her  Pastor  for  a  copy  of  a  sermon  for 
the  press :  "  La !"  said  she,  "  it's  no  use :  you  may  print  the  sarmon^ 
but  you  can't  print  the  tone  .'"  And  in  truth,  "the  tone"  is  of  some 
importance,  even  if  it  be  not  the  best  in  the  world.  The  Lectures  had 
to  be  written  out  from  the  brief ;  the  excitement  of  a  large  and  earnest 
audience  was  gone  ;  the  matter  had  been  in  a  considerable  degree  dis- 
missed from  my  mind  ;  and  it  was  very  much  like  beginning  to  do  over 
again  in  cold  blood  what  had  been  done  in  a  glow.  I  confess,  there- 
fore, to  some  reluctance  at  first  to  setting  about  the  necessary  prepa- 
ration for  the  press.  But  circumstances  conspired  to  urge  me  :  circum- 
stances which  seemed  at  once  to  create  and  to  indicate  a  fresh  demand 
in  the  community,  for  a  re-presentation  of  the  grounds  on  which  a  faith, 
to  me  inestimably  precious,  rests.  My  own  deep  love  and  gratitude  for 
the  faith  which  has  been  baptized  with  the  name  of  Unitarianism  ; 
my  conviction  of  its  being  the  original  and  essential  faith  of  the  New 
Testament  and  the  primitive  Church,  and  destined  yet  to  recover  its 
hold  upon  the  affections  and  the  allegiance  of  Christendom ;  my  per- 
suasion that  it  is  altogether  without  warrant  either  to  denounce  or  re- 
gard as  infidel  that  vast  majority  of  our  population  which  is  now  un- 
happily dissociated  from  all  the  religious  institutions  of  this  nominally 
Christian  land — since  among  the  portion  of  it  most  indifferent  or  most 
opposed  to  the  orthodox  dispensation  of  the  Gospel,  many  might  be 
found  ready  to  accept,  could  they  only  be  brought  to  understand,  our 
more  rational  and  Scriptural  views  ;  my  observation,  notwithstanding 


VI  PEEFACE. 

the  wide-spread  and  deep-seated  popular  prejudice  against  Unitarianism, 
of  the  increasing  influence  of  its  principles  of  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures,  of  its  mode  of  regarding  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  of 
its  essential  and  peculiar  spirit,  upon  the  general  tone  of  religious 
thought  and  discussion  ;  have  all  urged  and  helped  me  on. 

The  nanie^  Unitarianism,  I  care  little  for  in  itself,  though  I  like  it  as 
sufficiently  apt  and  distinctive,  where  and  so  long  as  a  distinction  must 
be  made  ;  and  while  I  see  the  thing  which  it  denotes  doing  its  work,  and 
leavening  the  mass,  however  unacknowledged  or  unobserved  even,  by 
those  whom  it  is  doing  perhaps  the  most  to  bless — yes,  doing  the  work 
of  orthodoxy,  and  by  degrees  winning  its  prestige — I  am  content.  By 
name,  I  never  expected  to  see  it  go  with  a  rush  ;  but  since  I  have  been 
able  to  note  the  current  of  religious  thought,  and  especially  since  the 
great  controversy  more  than  thirty  years  ago,  in  Europe,  in  Great 
Britain,  and  at  home,  tending  to  and  largely  resulting  in  more  liberal 
views  and  a  more  liberal  spirit  in  the  very  bosom  of  the  orthodox 
churches ;  to  see  how  these  pervade  the  best  literature  of  the  age — 
how  they  are  enlarging  the  bounds  Avithin  which  men  of  different 
names  and  sects  can  co-operate  for  the  truest  Christianization  of  so- 
ciety and  the  world — how  they  are  driving  intolerance  and  bigotry  back 
into  the  skulking-places  of  mere  ignorance  and  superstition — I  feel  sure, 
that  all  that  zve  have  been  most  ready  to  contend  for  under  that  name, 
was  never  more  active  or  mighty.  The  practical  recognition  of  the 
great  truths,  not  merely  of  One  God,  but  of  One  God,  the  FATHER— 
of  One  all-sufficient  Saviour,  the  Saviour  of  all,  and  not  of  an  "  elect" 
portion  of  the  race  only — of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  our  Father  in  heaven, 
the  Comforter  ever  ready  to  come  into  the  hearts  of  all  who  seek  it — 
of  the  brotherhood  of  man,  in  Avhich  all  the  great  interests  of  the  race 
are  seen  to  be  inseparably  one,  and  as  such  to  be  regarded  and  cared 
for  by  the  Church  of  Christ  more  than  any  or  all  matters  of  creed  or 
belief — these  among  the  leading  truths,  which  Unitarianism  has  always 
held  dear  and  has  always  faithfully  contended  for,  apart  from  all  meta- 
physical subtleties  and  confusion  of  tongues,  were  never  more  empha- 
sized than  now  in  the  Christian  consciousness,  whatever  the  loyalty, 
professed  in  any  quarter,  to  symbols  and  confessions  in  effect  fast  grow- 
ing obsolete. 

The  necessity  of  the  case  has  compelled  me  to  a  more  rigid  adher- 
ence to  purely  dogmatic  statement  and  discussion,  than  I  could  have 
wished.  Bolievhig,  as  T  do,  in  Christianity  as  an  Authoritative,  Re- 
vealed Religion,  and  that  it  siill  suffers  from  corruptions  induced  by 


PREFACE.  Vil 

false  glosses  and  interpretations  of  its  Records,  I  am  unfeignedly  anx- 
ious to  commend  it  in  its  simplicity  to  the  serious  and  devout  inquirer. 
Not  that  I  do  not  believe,  on  the  one  hand,  that  a  Calvinist,  or  a  Trin- 
itarian of  any  stamp,  and,  on  the  other,  that  a  Deist,  a  Naturalist,  a 
Rationalist,  may  be  as  good  as — perhaps  better  than — many  who  boast 
most  loudly  of  their  Christian  faith ;  but  that  God,  having  seen  fit  to 
reveal  his  will  through  his  Son,  it  is  my  bounden  duty,  as  one  to  whom 
it  has  come,  not  only  to  see  to  it  that  I  understand  aright,  accept,  and 
obey  that  Revelation,  just  as  it  is-;  but  as  one  of  its  Ministers,  aid 
others  to  do  the  same. 

If  any  think  such  Lectures  are  not  needed,  because  orthodoxy  has  in 
many  quarters,  or  in  many  respects  been  ameliorated,  it  remains  true  that 
even  the  most  liberal  orthodox  bodies  or  churches  still  retain  their  old 
Symbols,  Catechisms,  and  Confessions  of  Faith  ;  and  that  by  these  in  by 
far  the  overwhelming  majority  of  cases,  is  a  man's  fitness  to  be  or  be- 
come a  member  of  the  Christian  Church,  tested.  So  long  as  such  is 
the  fact,  so  long  must  these  discussions  have  place. 

The  words  orthodox  and  orthodoxy^  are  of  course  used  throughout  the 
volume,  as  merely  designating  the  popular  faith,  or  the  faith  professed 
by  the  majority.  I  have  also  often  introduced  "  concessions  of  Trin- 
itarians" ;  not,  surely,  because  Trinitarian  expositions  or  criticisms  are 
in  themselves  of  more  weight  than  those  of  our  own  household  of  faith, 
but  because  they  are  in  the  nature  of  attestations  from  the  opposite  side 
of  the  argument,  in  every  given  case,  to  the  strength  of  our  position.  Is 
it  sufficiently  known,  that  the  entire  Unitarian  argument  may  be  sus- 
tained by  the  "  concessions"  of  Trinitarian  expositors  and  critics,  in 
reference  to  every  point  of  Scripture,  and  the  History  of  the  Church  ?* 

It  will  at  once  be  seen,  that  I  plant  myself  upon  the  Bible,  and  espe- 
cially the  New  Testament  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  I 
hold,  that  a  just  interpretation  is  needed  to  bring  out  the  spirit  from 
beneath  the  letter.  I  believe  in  progress ;  but  in  religious  matters, 
progress  within  Christianity,  not  outside  or  beyond  it.  The  Gospel  is 
specially  the  religion  of  progress  ;  has  always  been,  and  will  always  be 
in  advance  of  the  highest  religious  growth  of  man.  To  leave  it,  would 
be  only  religiously  to  retrograde.     Progress  ?     Yes.     But  remember 


*  Let  my  readers  consult  that  remarkable  volume  of  John  "Wilson,  entitled,  "  Con- 
cessions of  Trinitarians,"  published  in  England,  in  1842 ;  and  his  "  Unitarian  Prin- 
ciples confirmed  by  Trinitarian  Testimonies,"  2d  vol.  of  the  "  Theological  Library" 
of  the  American  Unitarian  Association,  Boston,  1S55. 


VUl  PEEFACE. 

that  some  things  are  fixed,  permanent  facts.  No  more  light  is  to  be 
looked  for  upon  them.  They  are  no  longer  matters  of  debate  to  the 
Christian  mind,  God  IS,  He  is  ONE.  Jesus  is  the  Christ — there 
is  no  other  ;  and  he  is  the  All-sufficient  Saviour  and  Son  of  God,  Man, 
too,  is  immortal,  and  the  subject  of  a  righteous  retribution.  Here  are 
examples  of  what  I  deem  fixed,  settled  facts,  and  no  longer  in  my  own 
mind  even  debateable. 

Finally  —  as  to  the  importance  of  the  questions  herein  discussed. 
Surely,  if  God  exist  in  Three  co-equal,  co-eternal  Persons,  each  God, 
each  the  object  of  worship — if  Jesus  Christ  be  verily  GOD,  the  proper 
object  of  man's  highest  homage  and  adoration — we  must  desire  to  know 
and  to  confess  it.  To  be  ignorant  of,  when  I  might  know  it — to  deny, 
when  I  ought  to  confess  it — were  indeed  taking  a  tremendous  risk. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  not  so — if  God  be  One,  without  ad- 
mixture of  Persons — One  Person  only  ;  if  the  Father  alone  be  GOD  ; 
if  He  alone  is  to  be  supremely  worshipped ;  if  Jesus  Christ  be  not 
GOD — not  the  object,  therefore,  of  divine  worship — not  Him  in  whom  we 
live  and  move  and  have  our  being — then,  with  my  present  convictions 
that  all  this  is  true,  what  gross  idolatry — "  accounting  or  worshipping 
that  for  God  which  is  not  God"* — would  it  be  in  me  to  worship  and 
adore  His  Son  ?  And  what  the  position  of  our  Trinitarian  brethren, 
should  they  be  finally  proved  unfaithful  to  the  light  ? 

♦South, 


LECTURES. 

LECTUKB    I. 

THE   UNITY   OF   GOD  —  THE   TRINITY. 

If  any  doctrine  can  be  called  fandamental  to  Re- 
vealed Religion,  it  must  be  that  of  the  strict,  simple, 
unqualified  Unity  of  God.  I  take  this  to  be  univer- 
sally admitted,  nay,  insisted  on.  There  is  not  a  more 
obvious  truth  in  the  Scriptures  ;  none  more  coincident 
with  their  whole  tenor  and  drift,  or  with  their  most  ex- 
press and  positive  declarations.  Rightly  interpreted, 
rightly  understood,  there  is  not  even  an  intimation  or 
hint  of  any  thing  else.  The  language  of  the  Bible 
upon  this  point  is  every  where  plain  and  explicit. 
The  declaration  recorded  in  the  fourth  verse  of  the 
sixth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  then  so  solemnly  made 
to  the  people  of  Israel  through  Moses  ;  and  afterwards 
in  the  coming  in  of  the  new  and  better  dispensation, 
quoted  and  so  emphatically  affirmed  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  twenty-ninth  verse  of  the  twelfth  chapter 
of  St.  Mark's  Gospel — "Hear,  0  Israel,  the  Lord  thy 
God  is  One  Lord" — is  clear  and  indisputable.  Unita- 
1- 


10  THE  FNITY   OF   GOD — THE  TRINITY. 

rians,  therefore,  not  only  without  hesitation,  but  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  unambiguous  language  of 
Scripture,  and  on  the  express  authority  of  Christ  him- 
self, affirm  that  GrOD  is  One  ;  in  the  strictest  meaning 
of  the  word.  One  ;  One  Person,  One  Being,  One  in- 
telligent, conscious  Mind.  There  are  seventeen  texts 
in  the  New  Testament  alone,  in  which  He  is  expressly 
called  the  One  or  Only  God.  In  thirteen  hundred  pas- 
sages the  word  God  occurs ;  in  not  one  of  them  is 
there  any  necessary  implication,  but  directly  the  con- 
trary, of  a  plurality  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead.  In 
but  very  few  of  them  has  it  ever  been  pretended  that 
such  a  plurality  is  even  implied. 

Indeed,  I  know  not,  had  the  sacred  writers  proposed 
to  guard  against  any  different  belief  from  that  of  the 
simple  Unity  of  God,  how  their  testimony  on  this 
point  could  have  been  more  express.  Besides  the 
citation  just  made  from  one  of  the  Gospels,  St.  Paul, 
in  the  eighth  chapter  of  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, having  declared  that  "  there  is  none  other 
God  but  One,"  in  the  same  breath  adds,  "to  us  there 
is  One  God,  the  Father" — to  us.  Christians,  that  One 
God  is  the  Father.  So  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  he  says  :  "  There  is  One  God 
and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all."  In  perfect  cor- 
respondence with  all  this,  we  find  in  the  nineteenth 
chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  that  our  Lord,  when 
a  man  addressed  him  with  the  words  "  Good  Master," 
declined  the  epithet ;  saying  :  "  Why  callest  thou  me 
good  ?     There  is  none  Good  but  One,  that  is,  God." 

Thus  clearly  is  the  fact  that  God  is  One,  strictly  and 
only  One,  stated  in  Scripture.     But  that  this  One  God 


THE   UXITY    OF    GOD THE   TRINITY.  11 

is  the  Father — in  other  words,  that  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  only,  is  this  One  God,  is  just  as  clear.  The 
beloved  Apostle  John  has  recorded  at  length  a  most 
remarkable  prayer,  offered  by  our  Lord  when  he  was 
about  to  leave  the  world.  If  he  would  ever  have 
spoken  simply,  unequivocally,  according  to  his  con- 
victions, nay,  his  knowledge,  it  must  have  been  at  that 
solemn  hour,  in  that  most  solemn  act.  Hear  him,  then, 
addressing  the  Father  :  "  This  is  Life  Eternal,  that 
they  might  know  Thee,  the  Only  True  God— and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  Thou  hast  sent."*  Could  any  lan- 
guage be  more  explicit  than  this  ? 

Omniscience  is  an  attribute  essential  to  Supreme 
Deity ;  but  to  this,  Christ  not  only  makes  no  preten- 
sions, he  disclaims  it  in  an  emphatic  manner  when  he 
says  :  "Of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man  ; 
no,  not  the  angels  who  are  in  heaven  ;  neither  the  Son ; 
but  the  Father."f  In  the  parallel  passage  in  Matthew^ 
he  snjs  most  expressly,  "  but  my  Father  only."  No 
resort  can  here  be  had,  as  has  been  attempted  by  Trin- 
itarians, to  their  favorite  hypothesis  —  that  merest 
hypothesis,  that  shallowest  assumption,  as  I  hope  here- 
after to  show — namely,  the  Double  Nature,  or,  as  it  is 
technically  and  theologically  called,  the  Hypostatic 
Union  ;  according  to  which  Christ  is  both  God  and  man. 
Whenever  attempted,  the  conclusion  has  been  only 
the  more  palpably  impotent.  The  obvious  difiiculty 
of  the  text,  on  the  supposition  of  the  truth  of  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Trinity,  cannot  be  overcome  ''by  sup- 
posing that  our  Lord  spake   of  himself   here  only 

*  John  17:3.  f  Mark  13  :  32.  t  24 :  36. 


12  THE   UNITY    OF   GOD — THE  TRINITY. 

as  a  man."  For  as  tlae  orthodox  Mackniglit  sajs^  : 
"  The  name  Father  following  that  of  Son^  shows 
that  he  spake  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  God,  and 
not  as  the  Son  of  man.  Besides,  the  gradation  in 
the  sentence  seems  to  forbid  this  solution.  For  the 
Son  being  mentioned  after  the  angels,  and  immediately 
before  the  Father,  is  thereby  declared  to  be  more  ex- 
cellent than  they,  which  he  is  not  in  respect  of  his 
human  nature ;  and  therefore  he  cannot  be  supposed 
to  speak  of  himself  in  that  nature." 

Macknight  here  recognizes  the  ordinary  Trinitarian 
idea,  that  the  phrase  or  title  "  Son  of  God"  implies  the 
Divine  Nature  of  our  Lord,  as  ''  Son  of  Man"  his 
Human  Nature.  Suppose,  then,  that  our  Lord  was 
conscious  of  being  possessed  of  this  Double  Nature ; 
and  that  he  actually  meant  what  Trinitarians  say  he 
meant,  that  as  "  Son  of  God"  he  was  God  the  Son,  the 
second  Person  of  the  Godhead,  and  that  as  "  Son  of 
Man"  he  was  indeed  ^^ihe  man,"  preeminently  the  man, 
but  nevertheless  man  only,  having,  as  they  often  allege, 
a  human  body  and  a  human  soul ;  how  stands  the 
case  ?  Assuredly,  his  language,  as  recorded  by  St. 
Mark,  must  then  be  understood  to  admit,  nay,  with 
emphasis  to  declare  his  ignorance  both  as  man  and  as 
God,  both  in  his  human  and  in  his  divine  nature, 
"  of  that  day  and  hour."  If  ignorant  in  that  respect, 
if  ignorant  on  any  one,  and  but  one  point,  he  was  not 
Omniscient.  And  I  cannot  help  adding,  though  not 
discussing  that  topic  now,  that  if  in  his  divine  nature, 
if  as  God  the  Son,  he  was  not  Omniscient,  then  that 

*  Harmony,  Sec.  123. 


THE   UNITY    OF    GOD THE   TKINITY.  13 

divine  nature  was  not  the  liigliest ;  tlien,  as  God  tlae 
Son  lie  was  not  the  Supreme ;  he  was  God  only  in 
an  inferior  and  subordinate  sense,  or  as  he  himself, 
on  another  occasion,  expressed  it,  as  being  one  "to 
whom  the  word  of  God  came.""^ 

The  argument  is  not  weakened  by  reading  "no  one" 
instead  of  "no  wan"  in  the  first  clause,  as  the  Greek 
might  at  least  with  equal  correctness  be  rendered.  For 
the  words  "the  Son"  are  still  there  ;  they  still  stand  in 
full  force,  used  by  Christ  himself  to  distinguish  him- 
self from  the  Father,  whom  he  describes  as  "  the 
ONLY  TRUE  GOD";  while  the  expression  "no  one" 
is  so  sweeping  of  itself  as  to  carry  with  it  all  other 
beings,  even  if  none  of  them  were  specified,  and  un- 
less some  were  excepted.  One  glorious  exception,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  made — "the  Father  only."  The 
Father  alone  beinsr  Omniscient,  is  GOD  alone  and 
supreme. 

The  frequency  with  which  God  is  called  or  described 
as  "the  Father,"  is  also  in  this  connection  to  be  borne 
in  mind.  In  the  Kew  Testament  He  is  called  simply 
"the  Father"  in  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
two  passages  ;  in  nineteen,  "  God  the  Father" ;  in 
various  places,  "God  our  Father,"  "Our  Father," 
"God,  even  our  Father,"  "God,  even  the  Father," 
"  Father  of  Mercies,"  or  merciful  Father,  "  Father  of 
Glory,"  or  glorious  Father.  He  is  declared  in  express 
terms  to  be  "  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ" ;  while  our  Lord  himself  described  Him  as 
''your  Father  which  is  in  heaven,"    "thy  Father," 

*  John  10  :  35. 


14  THE   UNITY    OP    GOD ^THE   TRINITY. 

''your  Heavenly  Fatlier,"  " your  Father"  ;  and  after 
his  Eesurrection,  directed  Mary  to  say  to  his  disciples  : 
"I  ascend  unto  my  Father  and  your  Father,  to  my 
God  and  your  Grod."  ISTever  in  Scripture,  not  in  one 
solitary  instance,  is  there  the  phrase  God  the  Son — 
which  is  so  familiar  to  our  ears  that  its  profanity  passes 
unnoticed. 

Then  the  Father  is  the  only  object  of  supreme  re- 
ligious worship.  Christ  worshipped  and  prayed  to  the 
Father ;  and  when  asked  by  his  disciples  to  teach  them 
to  pray,  begins  the  form  which  he  gave  them  with  the 
invocation — "  Our  Father  who  art  in  Heaven."  To 
the  woman  of  Samaria  he  declared — mark  the  words — 
"  The  hour  cometh  and  now  is,  when  the  true  ivorship- 
pers  shall  worship  the  Father."  His  precepts  and  his 
example  were  uniform  and  harmonious  on  this  point. 
He  always  directed  his  followers  to  "pray  to  the 
Father,"  as  he  always  himself  prayed.  Alluding  to 
the  time  when  he  should  be  taken  from  them  and 
go  to  the  Father,  he  expressly  forbids  them  from 
praying  to  himself,  and  points  them  to  the  Father. 
"In  that  day  ye  shall  ask  me  nothing  :  verilj^,  verily 
I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  of  the  Father 
in  my  name,  He  will  give  it  you."*  One  might  almost 
suppose  the  Saviour  had  in  view  that  gross  corruption 
of  Christian  worship,  in  which  he,  and  not  the  Father 
— his  Father — is  the  Deity  adored.  Hence  the  con- 
stant practice  of  the  Apostles,  as  may  be  seen  through- 
out the  Book  of  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  Kowhere  do 
they  pray,  or  teach  to  pray,  to  Christ.f 

*  John  16  :  23.    f  See  e.  g.  Ephes.  3:14,  etc. ;  ibid.  5  :  20 ;  Col.  1  :  3. 


THE   ITNITY   OF   GOD — THE  TRINITY.  15 

Now,  in  direct  opposition  to  tliis  great,  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  simple  Unity  of  God,  the  vast  majority 
of  the  Christian  Church  accepts,  and  for  long  centuries 
has  accepted,  the  mysterious,  irrational,  imscriptural 
dogma  of  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead.  But 
not  only  is  the  dogma  unscriptural,  which  is  our  car- 
dinal objection  to  it,  the  very  term  "Trinity"  is  not  of 
Scriptural  derivation  ;  and,  as  all  who  are  familiar 
with  the  Scriptures  know,  is  not  to  be  found  there,  nor 
any  word  or  term  corresponding  to  it.  The  word  first 
occurs  in  its  Greek  form  (rpidg^  in  the  writings  of  The- 
ophilus.  Bishop  of  Antioch,  near  the  close  of  the 
second  century ;  but  even  there  it  is  not  in  the  ecclesi- 
astical sense  in  which  the  word  was  afterwards  and  is 
now  used."^  In  its  Latin  form,  {Trinitas^)  with  a  more 
comprehensive  doctrinal  import,  it  is  first  found  in  Ter- 
tullian,  a  Presbyter  of  Carthage  in  Africa,  who  flou- 
rished about  the  same  time  ;  and  from  whom  it  seems 
to  have  been  at  once  adopted  by  his  pupil  Cyprian  and 
by  ISTovatian.f 

To  justify  the  epithets  which  I  have  applied  to  the 
doctrine,  let  us  look  at  some  of  the  popular  statements 
and  expositions  of  it.  I  beg  especial  attention  to  the 
fact,  not  simply  how  various  and  often  astounding  in 
themselves  are  these  statements  and  expositions,  but 
how  dissimilar  to  the  language  of  Scripture  —  that 
Scripture  which  those  churches  and  divines  who  make 
them,  hold  to  be  plenarily  inspired  ;  and,  so  far  as  they 

*  Theoph.  ad  Autol.  ii.  15,  cited  by  Hagenbach,  Hist,  of  Doctrines  ; 
Fuch's  Translation,  i.  128,  note  2  ;  Muenscher  Dogm.  Hist.,  Murdoch's 
Trans,  p.  55. 

f  Hagenbach,  id.  note  '6. 


16  THE   UNITY    OF    GOD THE   TEINITY. 

are  Protestants,  to  be  tlie  sufficient  rule  of  faitli  as  well 
as  practice.  One  would  tliink  that  a  scriptural  doctrine 
or  trutli  could  be  expressed  in  the  language  of  Scripture ; 
a  Christian  doctrine  or  truth,  in  the  language  of  the 
Christian  Scripture,  ''the  New  Testament  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  To  do  this  with  the  Tri- 
nity, is  simply  impossible,  and  therefore  never  at- 
tempted. Eecourse  must  of  necessity  be  had,  not  to 
"  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  but  which  man's  wis- 
dom teacheth." 

Turn  then  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 
In  its  First  "Article  of  Eehgion"  it  declares:  "In 
unity  of  the  Godhead  there  be  three  persons,  of  one 
substance,  power,  and  eternity,  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost."* 

*  The  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  did  not  attain  uniformity  of 
worship,  till  seven  years  after  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  Just  two 
years  after  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  by  which  our  national  Independence 
waa  secured,  the  first  Convention  of  that  Church  was  held  in  Philadel- 
phia, in  September,  1785.  Besides  other  omissions  and  alterations  from 
the  Liturgy  of  the  English  Established  Church,  to  which  the  churches  re- 
presented in  this  Convention  had  of  course  belonged,  it  reduced  the  num- 
ber of  the  "Articles  of  Religion"  from  thirty-nine  to  twenty  ;  struck 
out  entire  the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian,  and  the  clause,  "He  de- 
scended into  Hell,"  from  the  Apostles'  Creed ;  and,  by  a  Special  Com- 
mittee, published  the  Prayer-Book  in  this  form.  This  was  a  remarkable 
testimony  to  the  then  state  of  feeling  and  opinion  in  that  Church,  hon- 
estly and  openly  given.  For  although  no  essential  difference  may  be 
detected  as  to  points  of  faith  between  the  twenty  and  the  thirty-nine 
articles,  there  must  have  been  some  good  reason  for  such  a  marked  de- 
parture from  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  as  the  rejection  of 
two  of  its  three  Creeds  ;  retaining  the  one  which  has  so  very  little  in  it 
to  be  objected  to — except  its  name^  and  that  is  not  in  it  but  of  it,  giv;^ 
ing  the  false  impression  that  it  is  the  work  of  the  Apostles,  which  no- 
toriously it  is  not.     That  it  was  the  Apostles',  was  never  claimed  by 


THE   UNITY    OF   GOD — THE  TKINITY.  17 

And  then  the  Presbyterian  Chnrch.  In  the  Third 
Article  of  the  Second  Chapter  of  its  Confession,  it  says : 
"  In  unity  of  the  Grodhead,  there  be  three  persons,  of 
one  substance,  power,  ana  eternity ;  God  the  Father, 
God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  its 
"Larger  Catechism"  it  says  more  fully:  "There  be 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  one  true,  eternal 
God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory, 
although  distinguished  by  their  personal  properties." 

But  aside  of  these  statements  of  the  doctrine  by  lead- 
ing Protestant  churches  amongst  us,  and  which  are 


any  till  the  time  of  Ambrose  of  Milan,  in  the  fourth  century  ;  although 
substantially  but  in  various  forms,  all  admit  its  very  high  antiquity. 
That  the  Episcopal  Church  then  in  its  first  attempt  at  independ- 
ent organization,  should  have  retained  only  this  Creed  which,  as  re- 
gards the  Godhead,  is  plainly  and  purely  Unitarian,  and  not  Trinitarian, 
is  remarkable  ;  and  that  in  one  year  afterwards  it  should  have  unani- 
mously admitted  the  Nicene-Constautinopolitan  Creed,  though  by  a 
majority  it  still  persisted  in  keeping  out  the  Athanasian,  is  only  to  be 
accounted  for  by  the  in  terrorem  letter  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, in  which  he  said  :  "  "Whether  we  can  consecrate  any  (Bishop)  or 
not,  must  yet  depend  on  the  answers  we  may  receive  to  what  we  have 
Avritten."  The  last  Convention  had  repeated  theiV  request  to  the  Eng- 
lish hierarchy  "  to  confer  the  Episcopal  character  on  such  persons  as 
shall  be  chosen  and  recommended  to  them  for  that  purpose,  from  the 
Conventions  of  their  Church  in  their  several  States;"  and  for  this  im- 
mense boon,  and  to  satisfy  that  hierarchy,  through  which  the  Apostolic 
succession  must  be  had  unbroken,  (Heaven  save  the  mark  !)  no  appeal 
to  the  Gospel  record,  no  stand  on  impregnable  Scripture  and  right  reason 
was  taken  ;  but  so  far,  at  least,  submission  was  made  before  the  implied 
if  not  express  threat  of  an  English  Archbishop.  In  the  same  way  it 
happened,  that  the  obnoxious  clause  in  the  Apostles'  Creed — "  He  de- 
scended into  hell" — which  on  the  best  of  grounds  had  been  struck  from 
the  Creed  by  the  first  Convention,  was  restored.     But  how  restored  ? 


18  THE   UXITY    OF    GOD THE   TRINITY. 

only  average  specimens  of  the  statements  made  by  all 
orthodox  churches,  how  is  the  doctrine  stated  or  ex- 
pounded by  eminent  orthodox  writers  ? 

Eichard  Baxter,  the  eminent  English  non-conformist, 
says :  "  The  Three  Persons,  are  God  understanding 
Himself,  God  understood  by  Himself,  and  God  loving 
Himself."  Doolittle,  commenting  on  the  Assembly's 
Catechism,  says :  "  My  admiring  thoughts  of  God  are 
of  one  single  essence,  yet  Three  in  subsistence  ;  of 
Three,  that  One  cannot  be  the  others,  yet  all  Three 
are  One ;  that  are  really  distinct,  yet  really  are  the 
same."     But  the  famous  Eobert  South  says  :   "  There 


It  appears,  indeed,  in  the  body  of  the  Creed  ;  but  a  riibriG  is  prefixed 
to  the  Creed,  in  which  we  read :  "  Any  churches  may  omit  the  Avords, 
'He  descended  into  hell;'  or  may,  instead  of  them,  use  the  words, 
'  He  went  into  the  place  of  departed  spirits,'  which  are  considered  as 
words  of  the  same  meaning  in  the  Creed."  This  seems  a  good  deal 
like  child's  play.  The  English  Archbishops  and  Bishops  in  their  letter, 
had  informed  their  American  brethren,  that  the  article  ''  was  thought 
necessary  to  be  inserted,  with  a  view  to  a  particular  heresy,  in  the  very 
early  age  of  the  Church."  But  even  if  so,  the  article  is  not  found  in 
the  primitive  or  earliest  forms  of  the  Creed,  which  doubtless  best  ex- 
pressed the  faith  of  the  earliest  age,  that  nearest  the  Apostolic  age  of 
the  Church ;  and  the  very  permission  to  omit  the  article,  concedes  its 
unimportance,  let  it  mean  w^hat  it  may.  No  unimportant  article  of 
faith  should  have  place  in  any  Creed,  especially  one  to  be  constantly 
recited  in  public  worship  "by  the  Minister  and  the  People."  And 
a  Creed  which  is  professed  either  as  Apostolic,  or  espeoially  and  par  ex- 
cellence^ "the  Apostles',''  should  at  least  have  the  merit  of  being  an 
exact  transcript  of  its  expression  in  the  highest  Christian  antiquity 
where  it  is  found.  I  have  given  this  matter  the  more  space,  because  I 
take  "the  Apostles'  Creed"  so  called,  in  its  oldest  form  extant,  to  be 
the  most  Christian  Creed  extant ;  and  what  is  even  more  important 
in  this  connection,  utterly  and  emphatically  anti-Trinitarian,  and  so  far 
entirely  unobjectionable. 


THE   UNITY    OF    GOD THE   TKINITY.  19 

is  One,  infinite,  eternal  Mind,  and  tliree  somethings  that 
are  not  distinct  minds."  While  Bishop  Sherlock  says : 
"  The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  as  really  dis- 
tinct persons  as  Peter,  James,  and  John — each  of  which 
is  God.  We  must  allow  each  person  to  be  a  God. 
These  three  infinite  minds  are  distinguished  just  as 
three  created  minds  are  by  self-consciousness.  And 
by  mutual  consciousness,  each  person  of  these  has  the 
ivliole  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness  of  the  other  two." 
Dr.  Wallis,  of  the  English  Church,  holds,  that  "The 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  no  more  three  dis- 
tinct intelligent  persons  than  the  God  of  Abraham,  of 
Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  is  three  Gods  ;  the  three  Persons 
are  only  three  external  relations  of  God  to  his  crea- 
tures, as  Creator,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier."  But  Dr. 
South  says  :  "  The  three  Persons  are  internal  relations 
of  the  Deity  to  itself"  Dr.  Hopkins  warns  us  that  "  It 
must  be  carefully  observed,  that  when  the  word  Person 
is  apjolied  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  three 
distinct  persons,  it  does  not  import  the  same  distinction 
as  when  applied  to  men."  While  on  the  other  hand, 
Bishop  Waterland  calls  them  "proper,  distinct  per- 
sons, entirely  equal  to,  and  independent  of,  each  other ; 
yet  making  up  one  and  the  same  being."  Archbishop 
Seeker  says  :  "  Since  there  is  not  a  plurality  of  Gods, 
and  yet  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  each  of  them  God  no 
less  than  the  Father,  it  plainly  follows,  that  they  are 
in  a  manner,  by  us  inconceivable,  so  united  to  Him, 
that  these  Three  are  One  ;  but  still  in  a  manner  equally 
inconceivable,  so  distinguished  from  Him,  that  no  on^ 
of  them  is  the  other."  Bishop  Burnet's  statement  ie 
this :   "  If  I  say  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  be 


20  .    THE   UXITY   OF    GOD — THE   TRINITY. 

three,  and  every  one  distinctly  God,  it  is  true ;  but  if 
I  say,  tliey  be  three,  and  every  one  a  distinct  God,  it  is 
false.  I  may  say,  the  divine  persons  are  distinct  in 
the  divine  nature ;  but  I  cannot  say,  the  divine  nature 
is  divided  into  the  divine  persons.  I  may  say,  God 
the  Father  is  one  God — and  the  Son  is  God — and  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  God ;  but  I  cannot  say,  the  Father  is 
one  God — the  Son  another  God — and  the  Holy  Ghost 
a  third  God.  I  may  say,  the  Father  begat  another, 
who  is  God ;  jet  I  cannot  say,  he  begat  another  God. 
And  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  proceedeth  another, 
who  is  God ;  yet  I  cannot  say,  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son  proceedeth  another  God."  Bishop  Gastrell 
takes  the  ground  that  "  The  three  names  of  God,  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  must  denote  a  threefold 
difference  or  distinction  belonging  to  God,  but  such  as 
is  consistent  with  the  unity  and  simplicity  of  the  divine 
nature :  for  each  of  these  includes  the  whole  idea  of 
God,  and  something  more."  Upon  which  it  has  been 
well  remarked  that,  according  to  this  view,  ^'  The  Fa- 
ther includes  the  whole  idea  of  God,  and  something 
more — the  Son  includes  the  whole  idea  of  God,  and 
something  more — the  Holy  Ghost  includes  the  whole 
idea  of  God,  and  something  more ;  while  altogether, 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  make  one  entire 
God,  and  no  more !"  Bishop  Burgess  insists,  that 
"  The  Father  is  a  Person,  but  not  a  Being ;  the  Son, 
a  Person,  but  not  a  Being  ;  the  Holy  Ghost,  a  Person, 
but  not  a  Being.  And  these  three  non-entities  (!)  make 
one  perfect  Being."  The  celebrated  Bishop  Heber, 
one  of  the  most  brilliant  members  of  the  English  hie- 
rarchy, discovered,  that  "  The  Father  is  the  First  Per- 


THE   UNITY    OF    GOD THE   TRINITY.  21 

son  in  tlie  Trinity ;  tlie  Arcliangel  Michael,  the  Second ; 
and  the  Angel  Gabriel,  the  Third."  The  learned  Bar- 
row goes  a  trifle  more  into  details,  and  says  :  "  There 
is  one  divine  nature  or  essence  common  to  the  Three 
Persons,  incomprehensibly  united  and  ineffably  distin- 
guished; united  in  essential  attributes — distinguished 
by  peculiar  relations  ;  all  equally  infinite  in  every  di- 
vine perfection  ;  each  different  from  the  others  in  order 
and  manner  of  subsistence.  There  is  a  mutual  exist- 
ence of  one  in  all,  and  all  in  one ;  a  communication, 
without  any  deprivation  or  domination  in  the  commu- 
nicant ;  an  eternal  generation  and  an  eternal  procession, 
without  proper  causality  or  dependence  ;  a  Father  im- 
parting his  own — ^the  Son  receiving  the  Father's  life — 
and  a  Spirit  issuing  from  both,  without  any  division 
or  multiplication  of  essence.  These  are  notions  which 
may  well  puzzle  our  reason,  in  conceiving  how  they 
agree;  but  should  not  stagger  our  faith  in  asserting 
that  they  are  true."  And,  to  close  my  citations  of 
statements  and  expositions  by  eminent  men  of  this 
great  dogma,  let  me  place  on  record  in  these  pages  the 
words  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher :  "  My  God  ?  Christ 
Jesus  is  his  name.  All  that  there  is  of  God  to  me  is 
bound  up  in  that  name.  A  dim  and  shadowy  efflu- 
ence rises  from  Christ,  and  that  I  am  taught  to  call  the 
Father.  A  yet  more  tenuous  and  invisible  film  of 
thought  arises,  and  that  is  the  Holy  Spirit.  But 
neither  are  to  me  aught  tangible,  restful,  accessible." 
"While  Dr.  ISTehemiah  Adams,  of  Boston,  says  :  "  'Do 
you  worship  three  ?'  is  often  asked.  Surely  we  do, 
nor  do  we  strive  to  make  them  appear  like  one.  They 
have  specific  of&ces ;  we  have  specific  wants,  which 


2^-  THE   UNITY    OP   GOD — THE   TTIIXITY. 

lead  us  appropriately  to  worship,  now  one,  now  an- 
other, now  the  third." 

I  stop  not  to  analyse  any  of  these  various  and  utterly 
contradictory  opinions.  But  I  ask  whether  the  various 
and  contradictory  ways  in  which  the  doctrine  is  stated 
and  expounded  do  not  raise  a  strong  presumption  at 
the  outset  against  the  doctrine  itself  ?  One  thing  must 
be  granted — all  of  them  cannot  be  true,  for  they  make 
essentially  different  and  inconsistent  doctrines.  And 
if  so,  surely  it  is  possible  that  even  admitting  the 
Trinity  to  be  a  Scriptural  doctrine,  the  true,  the  only 
true,  the  absolutely  orthodox  mode  of  receiving  and 
holding  the  doctrine,  remains  to  this  hour  unknown, 
since  every  one  of  all  that  has  been  ventured  may  be 
false.  Is  it,  then,  to  be  believed  that  such  a  doctrine, 
known  in  reality  ouly  by  its  name,  can  be  an  essential, 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Revelation  ?  Would  God, 
such  a  God  as  "the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ" 
is  represented  to  be  in  the  gospel,  have  left  a  doctrine  of 
that  character — on  the  belief  of  which  it  used  to  be 
said,  and  is  even  now  said  in  some  quarters,  that  the 
salvation  of  the  soul  depends — so  obscurely  set  forth 
in  His  revealed  word  ?  Forty  particulars  have  been 
noted  by  one  writer,  in  which  learned  Trinitarians 
differ  among  themselves  on  this  subject.  I  do  not 
wonder  that  a  mind  so  thoughtful,  active,  and  free  as 
Mr.  Beecher's,  should  have  been  driven  from  its  moor- 
ings on  any  of  the  accepted  expositions  of  the  Trinity ; 
even  though  it  brought  up  on  one  which,  while  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  nullifying  the  doctrine  itself,  fixes 
him  in  a  form  of  Unitarianism  of  his  own  devising, 
but  leaves  him  at  direct  war  with  the  plain  teachings 


THE   UNITY   OF   GOD THE   TEINTTY.  23 

of  our  Lord  :  or  that  in  the  distraction  of  thought 
which  Trinitarian  worship  must,  in  such  a  mind,  en- 
gender, he  should  prefer  to  worship  One  God,  whose 
distinctive  "name  is  Christ  Jesus."  Especially,  too,  if 
"  all  that  there  is  of  God  to  him"  is  really  "bound  up 
in  that  name"  ;  if  the  tremendous  alternative  in  his 
mind  was — no  God,  except  Christ  be  He  !  But  I  do 
exceedingly  wonder  that  to  one  who  has  so  diligently 
studied  the  full  and  blessed  words  of  our  Lord,  the  all- 
endeared,  all-glorious,  all-attractive  Eevelation  of  the 
Father  which  they  declare,  so  rich  in  comfort,  so  in- 
spiring by  the  light  it  throws  on  the  Divine  Purposes 
and  Government,  should  seem  to  send  up  but  "a  dim 
and  shadowy  effluence"  !  Eob  me  of  any  thing  but 
this  great,  most  precious  faith  in  an  ever-present,  all- 
gracious,  personal  Father  in  heaven  !  I  can  better 
afford  to  part  with  any  other  article  of  my  religious 
belief  than  this  of  the  Divine  Paternity,  the  All-Per- 
fect Fatherhood  of  God.  Without  it  I  am  orphaned 
indeed.  Providence  seems  an  inexplicable  enigma. 
Life  a  dark  and  stern  problem.  Human  suffering  and 
death  stand  in  man's  path  to  torture  or  to  mock  him. 
It  is  of  no  consequence  to  tell  me  that  Mr.  Beecher's 
Christ  comprises  all  to  him  which  the  Father  does 
to  me.  For  if  so,  it  is  by  exalting  Christ  into  a  place 
to  which  his  fidelity  and  his  humility  alike  forbade 
him  to  aspire  ;^  the  place  of  that  Being  whom,  in  the 

*  Yid.  Philippians  2  :  6  and  John  11. — If  aiiy  marvel  that  I  cite  the 
first  of  these  texts  here,  let  them  remember  the  comment  of  Ambrose 
— "^e  did  not  assert,  or  arrogate  to  himself,  equality  with  God;  so  that 
he  might  show  us  an  example  of  humility  ;  but  suhjected  Jmnself,  that  ho 
might  be  exalted  by  the  Father."     The  late  Professor  Stuart,  in  his 


24  THE  UNITY    OF   GOD — ^THE  TRINITY. 

very  and  most  solemn  act  of  prayer,  he  not  only  ad- 
dressed as  "Holy  Father,"  but  testified  to  be  "the 
Only  Tkue  GOD"  ! 

But  it  is  "a  Mystery,"  this  great  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity !  This  is  the  easy  and  constant  resort  of  its 
advocates.  From  the  days  of  TertuUian,  who  ex- 
claimed, "  Credo  quia  impossibile  est " — /  helieve  because 
it  is  impossible — to  our  own,  it  has  been  their  refuge, 
nay,  even  their  ground  of  glorifying.  "I  ever  did, 
and  ever  shall,"  says  Bishop  Beveridge,, "  look  upon 
those  apprehensions  of  God  to  be  the  truest,  whereby 
we  apprehend  Him  to  be  the  most  incomprehensible ; 
and  that  to  be  the  most  true  of  God,  which  seems  most 
impossible  unto  us.  Upon  this  ground,  therefore,  it  is 
that  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospel,  which  I  am  less  able 
to  conceive,  I  think  myself  the  more  obliged  to  be- 
lieve— especially  this  mystery  of  mysteries,  the  Trinity 
in  Unity,  and  Unity  in  Trinity,  which  I  am  so  far  from 
being  able  to  comprehend,  or  indeed  to  appreherid,  that 
I  cannot  set  myself  seriously  to  think  of  it,  or  to  screw 
up  my  thoughts  a  little  concerning  it,  but  I  lose  myself 
as  in  a  trance,  or  ecstacy :  that  God  the  Father  should 
be  one  perfect  God  of  himself,  God  the  Son  one  per- 
fect God  of  himself,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  one  per- 
fect God  of  himself;  and  yet,  that  these  three  should  be 
but  one  perfect  God  of  himself,  so  that  one  should  be 

Letters  to  Dr.  Channing  on  this  passage,  admits,  that — "  our  version 
*  *  *  seems  to  render  nugatory,  or  at  least  irrelevant,  a  part  of  the 
Apostle's  reasoning  in  the  passage.  He  is  enforcing  the  principle  of 
Christia-n  (Christ-like)  humility  upon  the  Philippians.  *  *  *  But 
how  was  it  any  proof  or  example  of  humility  that  he  did  not  think  it 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  ?" 


THE   UNITY    OF    GOD THE   TRINITY.  25 

perfectly  three,  and  tliree  perfectly  one ;  that  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  should  be  Three,  and  yet 
but  One — but  One,  and  yet  Three  !  0  heart-amazing, 
thought-devouring,  unconceivable  mystery  !"  exclaims 
the  good  Bishop  in  a  glow  of  exceeding  transport, 
"who  cannot  believe  it  to  be  true  of  the  glorious 
Deity  ?" 

Here  let  me  remark,  that  the  fact  that  a  doctrine  is 
above  the  grasp  of  unaided  human  reason,  is  not  alone 
a  sufficient  argument  against  its  truth.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, merely  that  the  Trinity  is  mysterious,  that  Unit- 
arians reject  it,  but  —  leaving  the  purely  Scriptural 
argument  out  of  the  question  for  the  moment — because 
it  is  self-contradictory,  opposed  to  all  right  reason, 
positively  absurd.  Trinitarians  themselves  have  over 
and  over  again  admitted  this.  Bishop  Hurd  admits 
that  "Eeason  stands  aghast,  and  Faith  herself  is  half- 
confounded  "  at  the  manner  in  which,  on  the  Trinita- 
rian scheme,  "  the  grace  of  God  was  at  length  mani- 
fested." South  says  of  the  Trinity  in  its  logical  results : 
"  Were  it  not  to  be  adored  as  a  mystery,  it  would  be 
exploded  as  a  contradiction."  If  we  are  provoked  to 
a  smile  at  such  extravagance  in  Protestants,  who  thus 
put  themselves  at  the  mercy  of  Eomish  critics  without 
the  slightest  means  of  defence,  we  admire  the  bold 
and  consistent  stand  which  has  always  been  taken  by 
Eomanists  on  church  authority.  It  well  becomes  them 
to  say,  nay,  to  argue,  and  however  unnecessary  labor 
that  may  seem  to  us,  set  themselves  to  prove,  as  they 
have  done,  that,  in  the  words  of  one  of  them,  "  the 
Trinity  is  opposed  to  human  reason."     He  says  ex- 


26  THE  UNITY    OF   GOD — THE  TRINITY. 

presslj,  ''  My  belief   in  tlie  Trinity  is  based  on  the 
autbority  of  tbe  Cburcb ;  no  otber  authority  is  suffi- 
cient ;"  and  tben  proceeds  to  show  tbat  "  the  Athana- 
sian  Creed" — as,  doubtless,  the  best  statement  of  the 
Trinity — "  and  Scripture,  are  opposed  to  one  another." 
All  this  is  well  enough — what  we  might  expect — in  a 
man  or  a  church,  making  from  the  start  an  utter  surren- 
der of  Eeason  before  the  authority  of  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition.    Kot  so  in  a  Protestant ;  for  only  by  the  exer- 
cise of  his  Eeason  has  he  become  a  Protestant,  or  can 
he  as  a  Protestant  maintain  his  position.     To  us  a  doc- 
trine might  be  mysterious,  and  yet  be  entirely  reason- 
able, and  harmonize  with  itself     We  are  surrounded 
by,  we  live  amidst,  we  constantly  act  upon,  things 
mysterious.     What  more  mysterious  than  God  !     But 
who  of  us  doubts  His  Being  and  great  attributes? 
Who  does  not  feel,  mysterious  though  He  be,  infinitely 
removed  from  our  comprehension,  that  it  is  far  more 
reasonable  to  "believe  that  He  is,"  than  to  deny  it; 
nay,  that  to  deny  it,  in  the  midst  of  all  this  design  and 
contrivance,  this  wondrous  order,  variety,  and  beauty, 
this  fitness  of  means  to  ends,  these  intuitions  and  aspi- 
rations of  the  soul,  would  be  the  height  of  folly  or 
stupidity?     We  may,  we  do,  we  often  must,  believe 
what  we  cannot  comprehend ;  but  never  a  contradic- 
tion or  an  absurdity. 

But  whence  came  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or,  in 
other  words,  what  was  its  origin?  Its  origin  was 
clearly  Platonic.  It  was  brought  into  the  Christian 
Church  by  those  of  the  early  Fathers  who  admired 
and  had  adopted  the  philosophic  views  of  the  later 


THE    UNITY    OF    GOD THE   TRINITY.  27 

Platonists.  I  say  advisedly,  the  later  Platonists ;  be- 
cause, in  the  words  of  Prof.  Norton:*  ''N^otliing  re- 
sembling the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  to  be  found  in 
the  writings  of  Plato  himself.  But  there  is  no  question 
that,  in  different  forms,  it  was  a  favorite  doctrine  of 
the  later  Platonists,  equally  of  those  who  were  not 
Christians  as  of  those  who  were."  There  is  an  obvious 
distinction  to  be  borne  in  mind  between  what  is  posi- 
tively taught  by  the  Athenian  Philosopher,  and  what 
belongs  to  the  Platonic  philosophy  as  held  and  ex- 
pounded by  Philo  Judseus,  a  contemporary  of  our  Lord, 
who  has  been  styled  the  Jewish  Plato,  and  by  the  Fa- 
thers, or  Christian  writers  of  the  first  four  centuries. 
The  most  eminent  of  these  men,  especially  those  of 
Alexandria,  the  birthplace  of  Philo,  and  the  scene  of 
his  labors,  had  in  general  embraced  this  philosophy  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent ;  and  they  carried  its  modes  of 
conception  and  reasoning  into  the  faith  to  which  they 
were  converted.  It  was,  as  Mosheim  admits,  "  the 
impure  source  of  a  great  number  of  errors,  and  most 
preposterous  opinions;"  but  of  them  all,  n^ne  is  more 
marked  than  this  very  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which 
Mosheim  himself  accepted.  Basnage,  in  his  History 
of  the  Jews,  remarks,  that  these  Fathers  almost  made 
Plato  to  have  been  a  Christian  before  Christianity  was 
introduced  ;  in  allusion  to  some  of  their  efforts  to  show 
that  Plato  himself  taught  the  doctrine.  Cud  worth,  who 
in  his  "  Intellectual  System,"  has  exhausted  the  ancient 
learning  on  this  subject,  says  that  "the  generality  of 
the  Christian  Fathers,  before   and   after  the  ISTicene 

*  Statement  of  Reasons,  p.  96. 


28  THE   UNITY    OF    GOD — THE  TEINITY. 

Council,  represent  the  genuine  Platonic  Trinity  as 
really  tlie  same  thing  with  the  Christian,  or  as  ap- 
proaching so  near  it,  that  they  differed  chiefly  in  cir- 
cumstances, or  the  manner  of  expression  ;"'^  and  de- 
clares that,  ''therefore  does  Athanasius  send  the 
Arians  to  school  to  the  Platonists."t  Bishop  Horsley, 
too,  in  his  thirteenth  Letter  to  Dr.  Priestley,  says: 
"  The  advocates  of  the  Catholic  faith  in  modern  times, 
have  been  too  apt  to  take  alarm  at  the  charge  of  Pla- 
tonism.  I  rejoice  and  glory  in  the  opprobrium ;  I  not 
only  confess,  but  I  maintain,  not  a  perfect  agreement, 
but  such  a  similitude  as  speaks  a  common  origin,  and 
affords  an  argument  in  confirmation  of  the  Catholic 
doctrine  (of  the  Trinity),  from  its  conformity  to  the 
most  ancient  and  universal  traditions."  In  one  of  his 
charges  to  his  clergy,  he  says :  "It  must  be  acknow- 
ledged, that  the  first  converts  from  the  Platonic  school 
took  advantage  of  the  resemblance  between  the  Evan- 
gelic and  Platonic  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  the  God- 
head, to  apply  the  principles  of  their  old  philosophy 
to  the  explication  and  confirmation  of  the  articles  of 
their  faith.  They  defended  it  by  arguments  drawn 
from  Platonic  principles  ;  they  even  propounded  it  in 
Platonic  language."    . 

It  were  easy  to  multiply,  from  Trinitai:ian  author- 
-  ities,  proofs  which  must  strike  every  thoughtful  and 
candid  inquirer,  of  the  Platonic  origin  of  the  doctrine 
under  consideration.     Milman,  writing  of  "  The  Trini- 
tarian controversy"  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 

*  Cudworth,  Int.  Sys.,  vol,  ii.  p.  458. 
f  lb.  p.  461.     Ed.  Lond.  1845. 


THE   UNITY    OF    GOD — THE  TEINITY.  29 

century,  has  significant  words,  with  which  I  close  my 
remarks  on  this  point.  Having  said,  "  This  Platonism, 
if  it  may  be  so  called,  was  universal " — and  to  a  degree 
confirmatory  of  the  words  before  quoted  from  Prof. 
Norton  —  that  "It  differed,  indeed,  widely  in  most 
systems  from  the  original  philosophy  of  the  Athenian 
sage ;  it  had  acquired  a  more  oriental  and  imaginative 
cast;^'  he  adds:  "This  Platonism  had  gradually  ab- 
sorbed all  the  more  intellectual  class ;  it  hovered  over, 
as  it  were,  and  gathered  under  its  wings  all  the  reli- 
gions of  the  world.  ^  ^  ^  ^  Alexandria" — it  will 
be  remembered  that  this  was  the  birth-place  of  the  dis- 
tinguished Jewish  Platonist,  Philo,  the  influence  of 
whose  writings  is,  as  I  have  already  hinted,  so  obvious 
on  the  early  Fathers — "Alexandria,  the  fatal  and  pro- 
lific soil  of  speculative  controversy,  where  speculative 
controversy  was  most  likely  to  madden  into  furious 
and  lasting  hostility,  gave  birth  to  this  new  element  of 
disunion  in  the  Christian  world."*  He  alludes  to  the 
great  Arian  Controversy,  which  had  its  germ  in  the 
anathema  and  expulsion  from  Alexandria  of  Arius, 
one  of  its  presbyters,  by  Alexander,  the  Patriarch  of 
that  metropolitan  see,  for  what  he  was  pleased  to  style, 
"blasphemies  against  the  divine  Redeemer."  Arius 
held  the  Father  to  be  alone  the  self- existent,  unorigin- 
ated  God,  and  the  Son  to  be  "the  Only-begotten,  the 
image  of  the  Father,  the  Yicegerent  of  the  Divine 
Power,  the  intermediate  Agent  in  all  the  long  subse- 
quent work  of  Creation."  This  controversy,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Trinitarian  Milman,  turned  upon  a 

*  Hist,  of  Christianity,  Book  iii.  ch.  iv. 


30  THE  tJWITY   OP   GOD — THE  TRINITY. 

"  question  wliicli  led  to  all  tlie  evils  of  human  strife — ■ 
hatred,  persecution,  bloodshed."  "  From  this  period 
we  may  date,"  he  says,  "  the  introduction  of  rigorous 
articles  of  beHef,  which  required  the  submissive  assent 
of  the  mind  to  every  word  and  letter  of  an  established 
creed,  and  which  raised  the  slightest  heresy  of  opinion 
into  a  more  fatal  offence  against  God,  and  a  more  odious 
crime  in  the  estimation  of  man,  than  the  worst  moral 
delinquency,  or  the  most  flagrant  deviation  from  the 
spirit  of  Christianity." 

But  although  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  had  a  Pla- 
tonic origin,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  that  it  assumed 
at  once  its  modern  form.  It  advanced  towards  that 
by  measured  steps.  Previous  to  the  Council  of  Mce, 
A.D.  825,  the  nearest  approach  to  the  modern  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  was,  that  the  Father  alone  was  Supreme 
God,  and  the  Son  and  Holy  GhOst  beings  created  by 
and  subordinate  to  Him,  each  called  God,  but  in  a 
lower  sense.  In  the  Kicene  Creed,  so  called  because 
voted  in  by  the  Council  above  referred  to — a  mode  of 
rather  doubtful  propriety  for  establishing  what  is  Ke- 
vealed  Truth  —  "the  Father"  is  alone  described  as 
"Almighty,"  and  alone  in  the  absolute  sense  called 
"  One  God."  But  "Jesus  Christ "  is  described  as  "  One 
Lord,"  "the  only -begotten  Son  of  God,  Begotten  of 
his  Father  before  all  worlds."  Could  any  language 
more  plainly  mark  derivation  ?  and  if  in  such  a  case 
derivation  were  rightly  predicable,  it  of  necessity  made 
the  derived  being,  "the  Son,"  inferior  and  subordinate 
to  the  Being  from  whom  he  was  derived — "  the  Father 
Almighty."  "  The  Holy  Ghost "  is  not  even  called 
"  God "  in  any  sense.     Beyond  this  the  church  had 


THE   UNITY   OP   GOD — THE  TEINITT.  31 

not  yet  gone.  The  Council  of  Nice  "  established  as 
the  inviolable  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  that 
the  Son  is  of  the  same  essence  with  the  Father ;  but 
sustains  to  Him  the  relation  in  which  that  which  is 
begotten  stands  to  that  which  begets."*  It  decided 
nothing  as  respects  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
contented  itself  with  simply  saying,  "  and  in  One  Holy 
Ghost."  In  this  unsettled  state  the  doctrine  remained 
for  more  than  fifty  years,  as  we  shall  by  and  by  see, 
before  another  step  towards  modern  Trinitarianism  was 
taken. 

Before  closing  this  Lecture,  I  may  remark,  that  the 
word  "Persons"  applied  to  the  "Sacred  Three,"  is  not 
in  general  admitted  by  Trinitarians  to  be  used  in  its 
strictly  etymological,  just,  or  accustomed  sense.  Some, 
indeed,  so  use  and  understand  it,  and  accept  all  the 
legitimate  consequences ;  and  so  long  as  the  word  is 
used  at  all  in  connection  with  this  subject,  we  have  a 
right  to  hold  all  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  there. 
They  are  not  to  take  shelter  under  any  plea  of  mys- 
tery, where  the  mystery  is  of  their  own  making.  No 
word  in  our  language  has  a  more  obvious  and  simple 
significance.  The  late  Prof.  Stuart  of  Andover,  la- 
mented that  it  should  have  ever  crept  into  the  sym- 
bols of  the  churches,  and  preferred  "distinctions," 
much  as  Dr.  South  did  "  somethings ;"  while  the  late 
Pres.  D wight  of  Yale  College,  says  he  does  not  know 
luhat  the  word  means,  but  yet  thinks  it  "  a  convenient 
term."  Convenient !  for  what  ?  when  confessedly  it  is, 
in  the  connection  used,  so  ambiguous  as  to  be  utterly 
unintelligible  ! 

*  Hap^enbach's  Hist,  of  Doctrines,  i.  268. 


LECTURE    II. 

THE      TRINITY  —  CONTINUED. 

I  NOW  come  to  consider  tlie  claims  of  the  Trinity,  or 
the  grounds  on  whicli  it  is  held  as  a  doctrine  of  Ee- 
vealed  Eeligion,  and  especially  of  the  Gospel.  How 
often  and  how  confidently  has  it  been  called  preem- 
inently the  doctrine  of  the  Bible — alleged  to  be  written 
out,  nay,  standing  out  on  its  pages  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation  in  such  bold  relief,  that  "he  who  runs 
may  read"  !  And  yet  nothing  is  farther  from  the 
truth.  Beginning  with  the  Hebrew  race,  in  all  their 
generations,  and  for  whose  special  instruction  the  Old 
Testament  was  compiled,  they  are  a  standing  testimony 
that  it  teaches  no  such  doctrine.  With  a  firmness  and 
clearness  of  statement  which  admit  of  neither  tamper- 
ing nor  evasion,  they  hold,  and  always  held,  that  their 
Sacred  Books  declare  most  emphatically  the  doctrine 
of  the  strict,  simple  Unity  of  God.  Christian  Trinita- 
rian expositors.  Catholic  and  Protestant,  affirm  the 
same  ;  and  confess,  with  Bishop  Burnet,  "  that  it 
would  not  be  easy  to  prove  the  Trinity  from  the  Old 
Testament."  Finally,  the  Christian  Fathers  did  not  so 
much  as  pretend  that  the  doctrine  was  plainly  taught 
in  the  New  Testament,  or  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 
On  the  contrary,  they  often  use  the  utmost  ingenuity 
to  account  for  the  obscurity  in  which  it  was  kept  by 


THE   TllINITY.  33 

them,  as  well  as  for  the  total  ignorance  concerning  it 
of  the  favored  people.  What  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
did  not  plainly  teach,  would  not  be  likely  to  appear  iu 
what  the  latter  wrote.  Some  of  the  Fathers,  as  Atha- 
nasius,  assigned  as  a  reason  why  Christ  did  not  declare 
his  Deity  to  the  Jews,  that  the  world  could  not  yet  bear 
the  doctrine  ;  and  he  af&rmed  that  the  disciples  had  no 
knowledge  of  it  before  Pentecost.*  Theodoret  declares, 
that  before  his  death,  Jesus  did  not  appear  as  God 
either  to  the  Jews  or  the  Apostles.f  And  Chrysostom 
not  only  says,  that  Christ  did  not  immediately  reveal 
his  Deity,  but  that  Mary  did  not  herself  know  the 
secret  that  he  was  God  Supreme.:]:  All  through  the 
writings  of  these  men,  so  far  as  they  are  preserved  to 
us,  we  have  their  acknowledgments  that  even  after  the 
death  of  Christ  his  Apostles  did  not  openly  teach  the 
doctrine  ;  alleging  the  fact  as  a  proof  of  their  prudence 
and  wisdom — on  the  one  hand  as  regarded  the  Jews, 
who  held  so  tenaciously  the  Unity  of  Jehovah,  and 
whose  prejudices  would  be  shocked  ;  on  the  other,  the 
Gentiles,  who  might  thereby  be  confirmed  in  their 
polytheism.  Chrysostom  would  have  us  believe  that 
the  Apostle  begins  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  by  de- 
claring that  "  it  was  God  who  spake  by  the  prophets, 
and  not  that  Christ  himself  had  spoken  by  them,  be- 
cause their  minds  were  weak,  and  they  were  not  able 
to  bear  the  doctrine  concerning  Christ.§  (Ecumenius, 
on  the  text  in  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
eighth  chapter  and  sixth  verse — "  There  is  one  God  the 

*  Serm.  Maj.  de  fide,  in  Montf.  Collect.  Pat.  vol.  2,  p.  39. 
f  Op.  ii.  15.    Ed.  Hal.  %  Op.  iii.  289. 

§  In  Uebr.  i.  Op.  vol.  x.  Hno. 
9^- 


34  THE  TEINITY. 

Fatlier,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  —  sajs  :    "The 
Apostle  speaks  cautiously  of  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
calling  the  Father  One  G-od,  lest  they  should  think 
there  were  two  Grods  ;  and  the  Son  One  Lord,  lest  they 
should  think  there  were  two  Lords."*    And  Theophy- 
lact,  on  1  Tim.  2  :  5 — "  For  there  is  One  Grod,  and  One 
Mediator  between  Grod  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus" 
—  says :    "  Because  polytheism    then    prevailed,   the 
Apostle  did  not  speak  plainly  of  the  Deity  of  Christ, 
lest  he  should  be  thought  to  introduce  many  Gods." 
None  of  these  writers  are  later  than   A.D.    820.     Of 
course,  if  Christ  be  not  plainly  taught  by  the  Apostles 
to  be  God,  no  such  Trinity  as  is  alleged  can  have  been. 
It  were  here  pertinent  to  ask,  what  authority  had 
these  men — for  whom  no  special  illumination,  not  to 
say  inspiration,  can  with  any  show  of  plausibility  be 
pretended,  nay,  which  is  never  assumed  for  them — to 
foist  upon  the  Church  this  great  "  mystery,"  to  charge 
upon  the   sacred   writers   this   strange   concealment  ? 
Every  man  of  common-sense  will  answer,  none  what- 
ever.    The  claim  of  such  authority  is  preposterous, 
and  not  for  a  moment  to  be  regarded.     So  far,  how- 
ever, as  their  admissions  go  to  the  point,  that  Holy 
Scripture,  on  its  face  and  in  plain  language,  does  not 
teach  the  doctrine,  the  same  have  been  made  in  every 
age  since  down  to  our  own — alike  by  Eomanist  and 
Protestant.     Learned  men  of  the  Komish  Communion, 
though  firmly  holding  to  their  Trinitarianism,  make  the 
same  admissions.     Sacroboscus,  in  his  "  Defence  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,"  declares  that  "  the  Arians  appealed 

*  Op.  vol.  i.  492. 


THE  TRINITY.  85 

to  the  Scriptures  in  support  of  their  opinions;  and 
that  they  were  not  condemned  by  the  Scriptures,  but 
by  Tradition."  Alphonso  Salmeron  says  :  "  Christ 
did  not  receive  testimony  from  the  Evangelists  that  he 
was  God.""^  Cardinal  Hosius  says  :  "  We  believe  the 
doctrine  of  a  Triune  God,  because  we  have  received  it 
by  tradition,  though  not  mentioned  at  all  in  Scrip- 
ture."f  And,  most  distinctly  and  boldly,  Eemundus,f 
addressing  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  warns  them 
in  these  words  :  "  You  will  be  obliged  to  confess,  how- 
ever unwillingly,  that  if  you  rely  on  the  Scriptures 
you  will  be  compelled  to  yield  to  the  modern  Arians, 
no  less  than  the  Fathers  were  to  those  of  ancient  times ; 
unless,  like  them,  you  appeal  to  Tradition,  and  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Church.  They  were  taught 
hy  Tradition  that  there  are  Three  Consubstantial  Per- 
sons of  the  same  nature  and  essence  which  we  worship 
as  One  God  in  the  fulness  of  the  Trinity ;  and  also, 
that  in  Jesus  Christ  there  are  Two  perfect  substances, 
but  only  One  Person.  Tell  me,  if  you  listen  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  express  word  of  God  alone,  with 
what  arms  can  you  expect  to  engage  with  these  men  ? 
In  what  way  can  you  extricate  yourselves  from  the 
innumerable  arguments  which  they  advance,  unless  you 
cling  to  Tradition,  and  the  consent  of  the  Church,  as 
the  only  anchor  of  safety  ?"  In  our  own  day,  Mr. 
Newman,  a  convert  to  Eome  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, in  his  "  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century,"*  says : 

*  Comm.  in  Ev.  Prolog,  xxvi.  torn.  1,  p.  391. 

f  Conf.  Cath.  fid.  Christi.  cap.  27. 

X  Hist,  of  Rise  and  Frogresa  of  Heresies,  Pt.  i.  1.  2,  cap.  15. 

§  Page  55. 


36  THE   TRINITY. 

"It  may  startle  tliose  wlio  are  but  little  acquainted 
with  tlie  popular  writings  of  this  day,  (fourth,  century,) 
yet  I  believe  the  most  accurate  consideration  of  the 
subject  will  lead  us  to  acquiesce  in  the  statement  as  a 
general  truth,  that  the  doctrines  in  question  (the  Trinity, 
Atonement,  etc.)  have  never  been  learned  merely  from 
Scripture.  Surely  the  Sacred  volume  was  never  in- 
tended, and  was  not  adapted,  to  teach  our  creed.  ^  *  '''' 
From  the  first,  it  has  been  the  error  of  heretics  to 
neglect  the  information  provided  for  them,  and  to  at- 
tempt for  themselves  a  work  for  which  they  are  unable 
— the  eliciting  of  systematic  doctrine  from  the  scattered 
notices  of  the  truth  which  Scripture  contains." 

But  Trinitarians  of  the  Protestant  Faith  have  con- 
fessed the  obscurity  of  the  Sacred  Text  upon  this  sub- 
ject. The  zealous  French  Eeformer,  Jurieu,^  though 
holding  that,  to  deny  the  Trinity,  was  to  be  guilt}^  of 
one  of  the  deadliest  heresies,  allows,  in  his  Pastoral 
Letters,  that  it  was  not  known  in  its  proper  shaj^e  till 
the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century,  at  the  Council  of 
Nice — nay,  till  the  Council  of  Constantinople  —  and 
even  proves,  from  the  Fathers^  that  during  the  three 
first  centuries  it  was  the  universal  opinion,  that  the  Son 
was  not  equal  to  the  Father,  nor  his  existence  of  the 
same  duration. 

Bishop  Smallridge,  of  the  English  Church,  has  this 
language^"  :  "  It  must  be  owned  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  as  it  is  proposed  in  our  Articles,  our 
Liturgy,  our  Creeds,  is  not  in  so  many  words  taught  us 

*  Cited  in  Ben  Mordecai's  (H'y  Taylor's)  Apol.  i.  p.  46. 
f  Sixty  Sermons,  p.  318. 


THE   THIXITY.  37 

t 

in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  What  we  profess  in  our 
prayers  we  nowhere  read  in  Scripture,  that  the  One 
God,  the  One  Lord,  is  not  one  only  Person,  but  Three 
Persons  in  one  substance.  There  is  no  such  text  in 
Scripture  as  this,  that  '  the  Unity  in  Trinity,  and  the 
Trinity  in  Unity,  is  to  be  worshipped.'  Ko  one  of 
the  inspired  writers  hath  expressly  affirmed  that  in  the 
Trinity  none  is  afore  or  after  other,  none  is  greater  or 
less  than  another,  bat  the  whole  three  persons  are  co- 
eternal  together  and  co-equal."  But  the  most  striking 
acknowledgment  upon  this  point  from  a  learned  Pro- 
testant, was  made  in  a  speech  delivered  to  the  Irish 
House  of  Lords  by  Dr.  Clayton,  Bishop  of  Clogher,  on 
the  second  of  February,  1756.  He  said  :  "  The  strong- 
est abettors  of  the  Nicene  Creed  do  not  so  much  as 
pretend  that  the  doctrine  of  the  consubstantiality  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  onl}^  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the  primitive 
Fathers.  And  I  beseech  your  Lordships  to  consider 
whether  it  is  not  absolutely  contradictory  to  the  funda- 
mental principles  on  which  the  Reformation  of  the  re- 
ligion from  Popery  is  built,  to  have  any  doctrine 
established  as  a  rule  of  faith  which  is  founded  barely 
on  Tradition,  and  is  not  plainly  and  clearly  revealed 
in  the  Scriptures  ?"  I  cannot  refrain  from  adding 
what  has  a  strong  bearing  on  this  entire  discussion, 
that  he  said:  "As  to  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  this 
and  the  following  century,  (the  third  and  fourtli,)  I 
must  inform  your  Lordships  that  all  those  books  which 
were  published  in  opposition  to  the  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Nice  have  been  destroyed — so  that  all  our 
information  comes  from  the  other  side.     And  of  all 


38  THE  TEINITY. 

those  histories  suffered  to  come  down  to  our  hands,  I 
do  not  know  of  one,  except  Eusebius  of  Cesarea,  (who 
says  little  on  the  subject,)  but  what  is  so  filled  with 
falsehood,  vagaries  or  contradictions,  that  their  veracity 
is  not  to  be  depended  on." 

If,  then,  the  Trinity  be  not  a  doctrine  expressly  taught 
in  Scripture,  it  can  be  at  the  best  but  a  matter  of  in- 
ference. And  so  accordingly  it  is  often  declared  to  be 
by  Trinitarian  Protestants.  The  Romanist  takes  it  on 
tradition,  but  they  on  inference.  Mr.  Carlile,  in  his 
"Jesus  Christ  the  Great  God  our  Saviour,"*  admits 
that :  "  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  rather  a  doctriDe 
of  inference  and  of  indirect  intimation,  than  a  doctrine 
directly  and  explicitly  declared."  And  still  further : 
"  That  a  doctrine  of  inference  ought  never  to  be  placed 
on  a  footing  of  equality  with  a  doctrine  of  direct  and 
explicit  revelation."  The  celebrated  Oxford  Tracts 
ask  :  "  Where  is  this  solemn  and  comfortable  mystery 
(of  the  Trinity)  formally  stated  in  Scripture  as  we 
find  it  in  the  Creeds  ?"f  and  proceed  to  declare  it  a 
thing  of  inference.  The  same  Bishop  Smallridge,  fi:om 
whom  I  just  now  quoted,  goes  on,  in  close  connection, 
to  say:  "But  although  these  truths  are  not  read  in 
Scripture,  yet  they  may  easily,  regularly,  and  unde- 
niably be  inferred  from  Scripture."  And  well  does  he 
add  :  "If,  indeed,  it  can  be  shown  that  these  inferences 
are  wrong,  they  may  safely  be  rejected."  Beyond  all 
question  they  may  ;  and  this  is  the  very  thing  I  am 
trying  to  show,  and  hope  to  make  plain. 

The  case  stands  simply  thus  :  There  is  not  a  shadow 

*  Pago  81.  f  Tracts  for  the  Times^  Nos.  45  and  81. 


THE  TRINITY.  39 

of  pretence  for  calling  it  a  plainly-revealed  doctrine  of 
Scripture.  It  is,  as  evidently,  a  doctrine  of  inference, 
and  inference  merely.  Christ  is  never  in  Scripture 
styled  God,  identically,  or,  if  you  prefer,  equally,  the 
same  being  as  the  Father,  the  Infinite,  the  Supreme, 
"  the  Only  True  God."  But,  things  are  said  of  him, 
or  by  him,  which  it  is  supposed  could  have  been 
spoken  only  of  or  by  Jehovah,  from  which  it  is  in- 
ferred that  Christ  is  God.  Many  things  are  ascribed 
to  the  Holy  Spirit  which  are  supposed  peculiar  to  Je- 
hovah ;  therefore  it  is  inferred  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
God.  Again  :  since  this  would  look  like  having  Three 
Gods,  and  yet  God  being  imdeniably  and  over  and 
over  again  declared  to  be  but  ONE,  it  is  further  inferred 
that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  must  all 
be  that  One  God.  And  so,  by  heaping  inference  on 
inference,  comes  this  Trinity  in  Unity.  How  unrea- 
sonable to  call  such  a  doctrine  an  essential,  fundamen- 
tal article  of  Christian  Faith  1  The  moment  it  is  per- 
mitted to  establish  and  require  assent  to  one  article  on 
such  grounds,  where  are  we  to  stop  ?  What  might 
not  be  established  in  this  way  ?  By  a  little  ingenuity, 
and  false  interpretation  of  Scripture  language,  we 
might  infer  the  most  absurd  notions,  and  open  a  flood- 
gate of  scandal  and  reproach  on  the  Truth.  No  ;  the 
very  term  inferred^  negatives  any  allegation  that  the 
doctrine  inferred  is  one  revealed  or  declared  to  be  true, 
and  all  claim  to  its  being  essential  to  be  believed. 

Holy  Scripture,  then,  being  our  witness — and  our 
appeal  lies  there — Holy  Scripture  nowhere  af&rms  the 
doctrine.  I  say  this  deliberately.  The  direct,  posi- 
tive, literal,  express  declarations  of  Scripture  af&rm  the 


40  THE  TRiNrrr. 

opposite.  "There  is  One  God;  and  there  is  none 
other  but  He.""^  ISTo  creed  in  Christendom  expresses 
the  doctrine  in  Scripture  language,  for  the  simple  rea- 
son that  it  is  impossible.  Its  stoutest  advocates,  who 
most  insist  on  calling  it  a  plain  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
who  are  most  ready  to  demand  faith  in  it  as  a  Funda- 
mental, have  never  defined,  because  they  cannot  define 
it,  in  the  words  of  Scripture.  In  saying  this,  it  is  with 
full  knowledge  that  our  Trinitarian  brethren  profess  to 
hold,  nevertheless,  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity ; 
nor  would  I  cast  the  least  doubt  or  imputation  on  their 
sincerity  in  that  profession.  But  they  hold  it  in  such 
a  way  as  seems  to  me  virtually  to  deny,  and  practically 
do  it  awa}^,  by  merging  it  in  this  great  "  mystery."  I 
repeat  that  I  do  not  object  to  the  Trinity  for  its  mere 
mysteriousness.  As  I  have  already  said,  I  find  mys- 
tery every  where.  But  I  do  object  to  its  unscrip- 
turalness,  self-contradictoriness,  absurdity,  polytheistic 
aspect.  I  can  see  it  in  no  other  light.  I  can  think  of 
nothing  more  absurd — nothing  which  savors  more  of 
polytheism.  That  many  Trinitarians  conscientiously 
and  honestly,  as  well  as  devoutly,  adore  the  Trinity  as 
a  Divine  mystery,  I  gladly  admit ;  but  they  make  or 
find  a  mystery  where  I  do  not  and  cannot.  In  me, 
therefore,  it  would  be  plain  polytheism  to  worship  the 
Three  Persons  each  as  Grod ;  and  all  who  do  so  worahip, 
are  solemnly  bound  to  sec  to  it  by  their  allegiance  to 
the  Truth — "  the  Truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus" — that  they 
have  express  Scripture  warrant.  Moreover,  I  say,  naj^, 
I  insist,  and  on  this  am  ready  to  join  issue,  that  they 

,  *  Mark  12  :  32 ;  compare  29  and  34 ;  1  Tim.  2:5;  James  2  :  10. 


THE   TRINITY.  41 

have  no  riglit  in  this  or  in  any  case  to  set  that  up  as  a 
fundamental  article  of  Faith,  to  make  that  a  condition 
of  holding  the  Christian  name,  or  of  Christian  fellow- 
ship, which  is  not  taught  with  the  utmost  directness, 
explicitness,  and  perspicuity,  in  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures.    And  such  is  not  the  Trinity. 

Let  us  pass  now  to  examine  some  of  the  arguments 
by  which  it  is  attempted  to  maintain  the  doctrine.  We 
are  referred  to  the  use  of  the  plural  pronouns  in  the 
Old  Testament,  where  God  speaks  of  Himself,  and  of 
the  plural  form  of  the  Hebrew  proper  names  of  the 
Deity.  In  the  first  case,  only  three  instances  occur  in 
the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  "And  Grod  said,  Let 
us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness."''^  "And 
the  Lord  said.  Go  to,  let  w5go  down."f  "Also  I  heard 
the  voice  of  the  Lord,  saying.  Whom  shall  I  send,  and 
who  will  go  for  us  T^X  Now  it  is  an  obvious  answer 
to  any  argument  drawn  from  such  citations,  that  if 
these  three  seem  to  indicate  a  plurality  of  persons  in 
the  Godhead,  the  supposition  is  utterly  rebutted  by  the 
fact,  that  the  singular  pronoun  is  used  thousands  on 
thousands  of  times,  implying  that  God  is  but  one  Per- 
son. Besides,  it  is  a  common  idiom  in  all  languages, 
and  in  every  age,  for  persons  in  authority  to  speak  of 
themselves  in  the  plural ;  as,  for  example,  "  We,  Vic- 
toria, by  the  Grace  of  God,  Queen,"  etc.  Nothing  is 
more  common  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  Ezra,  Arta- 
xerxes,  king  of  Persia,  begins  his  royal  reply,  "  The 
letter  which  ye  sent  unto  ws" — and  proceeds,  as  if  to 
show  the  idleness  of  the  argument  under  consider- 

*  Gen.  1  :  26.  f  Id.  11  :  7.  %  Isa.  G  :  8. 


42  THE  TRINITY. 

ation — "hath  been  plainly  read  before  me."^     That 
this  idiom  is  only  a  common  one,  and  by  no  means 
indicative  of  any  plurality  of  persons  in  the  being 
nsing  it,  is  proved  conclusively  in  that  the  same  Lord 
or  Jehovah  who  in  the  second  of  the  two  passages 
cited  from  Genesis  says,  "  Let  us  go  down,"  says  in 
another,  with  a  precisely  similar  purpose,   "  /  will  go 
down."f    In  the  second  case,  the  plural  forms  of  He- 
brew names  of  God,  the  simple  explanation  is  found 
in  what  the  best  Hebrew  Grammars  say.     Wilson,  in 
his,:}:  says :   "  Words  that  express  dominion,  dignity, 
majesty,  are  commonly  put  in  the  plural."     And  Prof. 
Stuart,  in  his,||  says  even  more  distinctly:  "For  the 
sake  of  emphasis,  the  Hebrews  commonly  emj^loyed 
most  of  the  words  which  signify  Lord,  God^  etc.,  in  the 
plural  form,  but  with  the  sense  of  the  singular.     This 
is  called  the  j^luralis  exceUentmr     Learned  Trinitarians, 
Romanists,  as  Bishop  Tostat,  Cardinal  Cajetan,  Bellar- 
mine — Protestant,  as  Calvin,  Grotius,  South,  Campbell, 
Michaelis,  Rosenmiiller,  with  a  host  of  others,  among 
whom  are  the  best  critics  and  lexicographers,  alike 
recognize  this  rule  of  the  Hebrew  syntax.     Trinita- 
rians being  our  authority,  the  point  is  too  plain  to  be 
longer  dwelt  upon.     Not  even  a  plurality  of  persons 
in  the  Godhead,  much  less  any  definite  plurality  such 
as  a  trinity,  can  be  with  any  propriety  argued  from 
the  plural  form  of  Hebrew  words. 

Turning  to  the  New  Testament,  the  scene  at  the 
Baptism  of  our  Lord  by  John  is  sometimes  cited  in 
proof  of  the  Trinity,  because  the  Sacred  Three  were 

*4:18.  fl8,  21.  XY.TlO.  §  P.  326. 


THE  TSINITY.  43 

obviously  present  together  and  united  in  one  act ;  tlie 
Father  bj  the  voice  from  the  opened  heavens;  the 
Son  standing  in  the  water ;    the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
descending  dove*     But  surely,  if  any  three  objects 
could  be  distinct,  different,  apart,  these  were.     Besides 
this,  there  are  really  but  three  passages  in  the  'New 
Testament,  which  are  cited  with  any  show  of  reason. 
The  first  is  the  Baptismal  Formula  at  the  close  of 
Matthew's  Grospel.f    But  nothing  is  there  said  of  the 
oneness  in  any  sense,  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ; 
no  hint  "the  remotest  given  that  they  are  one.     Then 
as  to  the  preposition  rendered  m,  it  were  better  ren- 
dered to  or  into  ;  while  the  words  the  name  of  are  in  the 
original  simply  an  idiom  of  the  Hebraistic  Grreek,  in 
which  the  New  Testament  is  written,  redundant  in  the 
translation  and  making  obscure  its  meaning.     "  Groye, 
therefore,"  says  the  Saviour,  "  and  make  disciples  of 
all  nations;  baptizing  them  to  or  into  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."     In  other  words,  conse- 
crating them  by  Baptism  to  the  faith  and  worship  of 
the  Father,  the  Supreme  and  All-bountiful  Source  and 
Giver  of  good,  spiritual  and  temporal ;  to  the  open 
acceptance  and  service  of  that  Gospel  of  truth  and 
salvation  which  He  has  revealed  and  published  by  His 
Son  ;  and  to  the  right  improvement  of  those  exhaust- 
less  and  gracious  influences  by  which  He  moves  on  the 
soul,  and  is  ever  ready  to  aid,  guide,  quicken,  and 
strengthen  in  all  goodness  and  duty.     The  second  pas- 
sage is  the  Benediction  with  which  the  Apostle  con- 

*  Matt.  3  :  16,  IT  ;  Mark  1 :  10,  11 ;  Luke  3  :  21,  22.      f  Matt.  28 :  19. 


44  THE  TRINITY. 

eludes  Hs  second  epistle  to  tlie  Corintliiaii  church.* 
The  same  remark  is  true  of  this  as  of  the  previous 
pjissage,  that  there  is  no  mention,  no  hint,  of  the  one- 
ness of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Grhost.  It  is  simplj 
the  expression  of  an  affectionate,  devout,  and  earnest 
wish  on  the  part  of  Paul,  that  "  The  Grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ" — the  divine  favors,  benefits,  bless- 
ings, privileges,  conferred  on  man  through  Christ  and 
his  Gospel — "the  Love  of  God" — of  that  Sovereign 
and  glorious  Being,  that  all-gracious  Father,  who  in 
His  own  essential  and  perfect  nature  "  is  Love"  itself — f 
"  and  the  Communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost " — the  full 
participation  of  those  gifts  and  graces,  which  are  the 
earnest  and  seal  of  the  Spirit  of  God  shed  abroad  in 
the  hearts  of  all  faithful  seekers — might  be  with  all 
them  whom  he  had  brought  into  the  Christian  church. 
Where,  in  either  of  these  passages,  is  the  least  trace  of 
this  amazing  dogma  of  " Three  Persons  in  one  God"? 

But  the  third  passage  to  which  I  referred,  is  the 
famous  text  of  the  "  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses." 
And  in  respect  to  this  I  feel  bound  to  say,  that  did  I 
not  know  that  this  text  had  been  recently  cited  in  a 
pulpit  of  this  city,  without  a  hint  that  its  integrity  had 
been  even  disputed,  as  an  unquestioned  and  express 
scriptural  proof  of  the  doctrine  under  discussion,  I 
should  feel  it  labor  wholly  uncalled-for,  and  mere  waste 
of  time,  to  recapitulate  even  in  the  briefest  manner, 
as  I  now  intend,  the  evidence  of  its  utter  spuriousness. 

Briefly,  then.  The  verse  is  not  found  in  any  ancient 
Greek  MS. ;  that  is,  in  any  MS.  of  an  age  prior  to  the 

*  2  Cor.  18:14.  f  lJohn4  :  8,  16. 


TnE  TEINITT.  45 

sixtli  century.  Bishop  Marsh  calls  it  "a  passage, 
which  no  ancient  Greek  manuscript  contains,  and 
which  no  ancient  Greek  father  exer  saw."*  Of  one 
Jiundred  and  fifty  MSS.  of  an  alleged  age  as  early  as 
the  sixteenth  century,  which  are  extant,  and  have  been 
collated,  and  which  contain  the  First  Epistle  of  St. 
John,  only  two  contain  this  verse.  One  of  these 
known  as  the  Codex  Ravianus^  was  considered  by  Wet- 
stein  a  gross  imposture ;  and  Michaelis,  who  says,  "  it 
is  the  second  of  the  two  manuscripts  which  have 
1  John's  :  7,"  and  that  "  it  contains  one  half  the  sum 
total  of  the  evidence  in  favor  of  that  passage,"  also 
pronounces  it  "  a  mere  imposture  ;"  and  adds  :  "  Let 
it  be  considered  in  future  as  having  no  critical  exist- 
ence, and  never  quoted  in  support  of  this  verse."t  The 
other  is  known  as  the  Codex  Montfortianus.  It  com- 
prises the  whole  New  Testament,  and  is  in  the  library 
of  Trinity  College,  Dublin.  It  is  really  the  oxAj  genu- 
ine manuscript  which  contains  the  verse ;  but  it  is  of 
as  recent  date  as  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  centurj^ 
Bishop  Marsh  says  that  "  it  made  its  appearance  about 
the  year  1520 ;  and,  that  the  MS.  had  just  been  writ- 
ten, when  it  first  appeared,  is  highly  probable,  because 
it  appeared  at  a  critical  juncture,  and  its  appearance 
answered  a  particular  purpose.":]:  What  this  "  particu- 
lar purpose"  was,  we  shall  presently  see.  Michaelis 
pronounces  the  manuscript  "unimportant — on  account 
of  its  modern  date,"§  and  says  that  "the  spurious  pas- 
sage in  the  first  epistle  of  St.  John,  was  admitted  into 

*  Lect.  ix.  f  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  pp.  294,  297. 

X  Marsh's  Lectures,  Part  vi.  p.  23-26. 
§  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  p.  28i. 


46  THE   TKINITY. 

no  manuscript  before  the  sixteenth  century.*  The 
very  tenacity  with  which  Michaehs  held  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  mad^  him  the  more  desirous  to  keep 
this  "spurious  passage"  out  of  the  sacred  text.f 
Speaking  of  the  "  immense  weight  of  evidence  against" 
it,  this  great  critic  says  :  "  One  should  suppose  that  no 
critic,  especially  if  a  Protestant,  would  hesitate  a  mo- 
ment to  condemn  as  spurious,  a  passage,  which  is  con- 
tained in  no  ancient  Grreek  manuscript,  is  quoted  by 
no  Grreek  Father,  was  unknown  to  the  Alogi  in  the 
second  century,  is  wanting  in  both  Syriac  versions,  in 
the  Coptic,  Armenian,  Ethiopic,  and  Sclavonian  ver- 
sions, is  contained  only  in  the  Latin,  and  is  wanting  in 
many  manuscripts  even  of  this  version,  was  quoted  by 
none  of  the  Latin  Fathers  of  the  four  first  centuries, 
and  to  some  of  them,  who  lived  so  late  as  the  sixth 
century,  was  either  wholly  unknown,  or  was  not  re- 
ceived as  genuine." 

The  "particular  purpose"  which  the  "appearance" 
of  the  Montfortian  MS.  "answered,"  according  to 
Bishop  Marsh,  in  the  extract  a  little  above,  was  this : 
The  celebrated  Erasmus  published  his  first  edition  of 
the  New  Testament  in  the  original  Greek,  accompanied 
by  his  own  Latin  translation,  in  the  year  1516,  and 
the  second  in  1519.  From  both  he  omitted  the  verse. 
Assailed  violently  from  various  quarters,  his  answer 
was :  "I  will  not  undertake  to  add  what  is  not  in  the 
Greek  manuscripts  before  me."  At  last,  however,  so 
confident  was  he  of  his  ground,  he  declared,  that  if 
any  Greek  MS.  could  be  found  which  contained  it,  he 

*  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  i.  p.  328.  f  Id.  vol.  iv.  441. 


THE   TRINITY.  47 

would  insert  it  in  his  next  edition ;  and  shortly  after, 
tlie  Dublin  MS.,  before  referred  to,  the  Codex  Mont- 
fortianus^  was  produced.  Suspecting  it  all  the  while 
to  be  a  translation  from  the  Yulgate  or  Latin,  as  he 
has  left  on  record,  he  nevertheless  felt  compelled  by 
the  word  he  had  passed ;  and  therefore  did  insert  the 
verse  in  his  third  edition,  in  1522. 

In  that  very  year  Luther  published  the  first  edition 
of  his  German  Bible,  and  omitted  it.  He  evidently, 
as  Michaelis  thinks,  must  have  deemed  the  manuscript 
which  compelled  Erasmus  to  insert  it,  "of  no  au.thor- 
ity;"  and  notMng,  either  of  evidence  or  of  censure, 
could  induce  him  to  admit  the  text  into  any  of  the  sub- 
sequent editions  which  he  issued.  In  the  last  edition, 
which  was  printed  while  he  was  living,  that  of  15-16, 
he  made  this  request :  "I  request  my  friends  and  my 
foes,  my  masters,  printers,  and  readers,  to  let  this  New 
Testament  continue  mine.  If  they  find  faults  in  it,  let 
them  make  another.  I  know  well  what  I  make ;  I 
see  also  well,  what  others  make.  But  this  Testament 
shall  remain  Luther's  German  Testament.  Nowadays 
there  is  neither  measure  nor  end  of  mending  and  bet- 
tering. Let  every  man  therefore  take  heed  of  false 
copies,  for  I  know  how  unfaithfully  and  untruly  others 
have  reprinted  what  I  have  printed."  Yet,  strange  to 
say,  Luther  had  hardly  been  thirty  years  dead,  before, 
with  "  Luther's  Translation"  on  the  title-page,  the 
passage  was  foisted  into  his  German  text  I 

The  verse  is  not  in  the  old  Latin  Yulgate,  or  in  any 
Latin  version  older  than  the  ninth  century.  It  is  not 
in  the  old  Syriac  version  of  the  third  century,  or  in 
the  manuscripts  of  the  Ethiopic,  nearly  as  ancient.     It 


48  THE   TRINITY. 

is  not  in  the  Egyptian  Arabic,  or  indeed  in  any  of  the 
Arabic  versions,  or  in  the  Armenian,  all  of  the  fourth 
century.  It  is  not  in  the  ancient  French  version,  more 
than  one  thousand  years  old  ;  or  in  the  Illyrian,  used 
in  Eussia,  Muscovy,  and  by  all  the  Slavonic  races.  It 
is  rejected  by  the  highest  critical  authorities  of  modern 
times,  of  every  shade  of  theological  opinion ;  besides 
Michaelis,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Wetstein,  Simon,  Gries- 
bach,  Le  Clerc,  Matthaei,  Tischendorf,  all  Trinitarians. 
Bishop  Lowth  denies  the  use  of  his  understanding  to 
the  man  who  would  defend  it.  Dr.  Middleton,  Bishop 
Marsh,  Archbishop  Newcome,  Mr.  Home,  Prof.  Per- 
son, the  unrivalled  Greek  scholar.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the 
great  Methodist  commentator,  abandon  it.  The  Eclectic 
Review  says  :  "  We  are  unspeakably  ashamed,  that  any 
modern  divines  should  have  contended  for  reta'  xIng  a 
passage  so  indisputably  spurious."  The  London  Quar- 
terly^ long  considered  the  champion  of  the  English 
Established  Church,  reviewing  Bishop  Burgess'  vindi- 
cation of  the  verse,  says :  "  The  Bishop,  then,  on  his 
own  avowal,  has  been  able  to  dismiss  every  doubt 
respecting  the  genuineness  of  a  verse  which  is  found 
only  in  a  single  Greek  manuscript,  and  that  of  recent 
date ;  which  is  not  quoted  by  a  single  Greek  Father, 
nor  in  express  terms  by  any  Latin  Father,  before  the 
sixth  century ;  which  is  wanting  in  the  more  ancient 
manuscripts  of  the  Yulgate  or  Latin ;  and  even  in  those 
in  which  it  is  found,  appears  in  such  a  variety  of  shapes 
as  clearly  to  show,  that  those  transcribers,  who  thought 
proper  to  insert  the  verse,  had  no  certain  reading  be- 
fore them.  We  have  the  most  sincere  respect  for  the 
Bishop  of  St.  David's,  but  we  cannot  peruse  the  de- 


THE   TRINITY.  49 

claration  without  astonisliment."  *  The  British  Critic^ 
the  acknowledged  organ  of  the  Establishment,  re- 
Adewed,  in  1830,  the  whole  controversy,  and  thus 
closed :  "  Believing  that  the  verse  is  unquestionably 
spurious,  and  consequently  that  its  authenticity  can- 
not be  maintained,  except  by  the  admission  of  prin- 
ciples which  would  tend  inevitably  to  destroy  our  con- 
fidence in  the  authenticity  of  every  other  passage  in 
the  New  Testament,  we  have  witnessed  with  uneasi- 
ness the  attempt  of  the  learned  Prelate  (Bishop  Bur- 
gess) to  establish  its  claim  to  an  inspired  origin,  and 
have  wondered  at  the  arguments  by  which  he  thinks  its 
claim  is  proved."  To  cite  one  more  name.  Dr.  Da- 
vidson, Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Independent  Col- 
lege, near  Manchester,  England,  in  his  Lectures,  sum- 
ming up  the  evidence  on  both  sides,  says : ''^  "It  is 
almost  superfluous  to  add,  that  many  of  the  most  strenu- 
ous defenders  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  have  main- 
tained the  verse  to  be  spurious ;  and  that  the  great 
body  of  critics  is  opposed  to  its  authenticity."  Our 
American  Prof  Stuart,  of  Andover,  doubts,  and  Prof 
S.  H.  Turner,  of  New- York,  rejects  it.  All  the  above 
are  Trinitarian  authorities  ;  but  to  any  who  know  their 
reputation,  quite  as  weighty  are  Unitarians  like  New- 
ton, Locke,  Lardner,  Milton,  Priestley,  and  our  own 
Norton.  And  yet  this  merest  interpolation,  this  spu- 
rious text,  is  still  retained  in  our  Bibles,  is  read  in  and 
preached  from  the  pulpit,  by  men  who  do  or  should 
know  its  spuriousness,  and  holds  its  place  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  of  the  English  Church  and  the 

*  Yol.  xxvi,  pp.  324  et  seq.  *  P.  145. 


60  THE   TRINITY. 

Episcopal  ChurcTi  in  these  United  States ;  wliere,  in 
the  Epistle  for  the  first  Sunday  after  Easter,  it  is  of 
course  read  pubhcly  once  at  least  in  the  year,  and  pro- 
bably "  without  note  or  comment,"  as  part  and  parcel 
of  the  "inspired  word  of  Grod" ! 

But  admit  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  verse  is 
the  genuine  testimony  of  St.  John,  the  Evangelist,  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.  What  then  ?  Of  what  is 
it  the  proof?  Of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  of  the 
Trinity  in  Unity,  and  Unity  in  Trinity  ?  of  Three  Per- 
sons in  one  God?  By  no  means.  Nothing  of  the 
kind.  Mr.  Wardlaw  says  :  "It  has  been  allowed  by 
Trinitarians  of  the  highest  fame  not  to  be  so."  Calvin 
says,  that  "  the  expression,  three  are  one,  must  signify 
in  agreement,  and  not  in  essence."  Beza  interprets  it 
in  the  same  way;  and  Macknight,  paraphrasing  th3 
verse,  says :  "  These  three  are  one,  in  respect  of  the 
unity  of  their  testimony^  The  very  structure  and  syn- 
tax of  the  Greek  original,  demand  this  interpretation, 
and  will  properly  bear  no  other. 

If  you  will  turn  to  the  passage  in  our  received  ver- 
sion, you  will  see,  I  think,  as  corroborating  the  results 
of  the  best  criticism  upon  it,  that  the  spurious  words 
break  and  mar  the  sense  of  the  context.  No  reference, 
no  allusion,  had  been  made  to  "  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,"  by  the  Apostle ;  but  in  the  sixth 
verse  he  had  mentioned  the  "water,"  the  "blood," 
and  "the  Spirit."  Hence  very  naturally  and  conse- 
cutively he  proceeds,  as  the  passage  should  read: 
"  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  :  the  Spirit,  and 
the  water,  and  the  Blood;  and  these  three  agree  in 


THE   TKIXITY.  51 

I  return  now  to  my  main  course  of  argument ;  and  I 
say,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
if  the  ultimate  appeal  lies  to  the  Scriptures — as  with 
all  consistent  Protestant  Christians  it  surely  must — is 
disproved  by  their  general  tenor  and  drift.  That  is 
uniform  to  the  point  of  the  simple  and  strict  Unity  of 
God.  Who  that  is  familiar  with  the  Scripture,  will 
deny  this  ?  But  in  the  next  place,  the  positive,  clear, 
unmistakable  declarations  of  Scripture,  disprove  it. 
What  can  be  more  positive,  clear,  unmistakable  in  its 
import,  than  the  language  of  Jehovah  by  Moses : 
"  Hear,  O  Israel !  the  Lord,  our  God,  is  One  Lord ! 
And  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord,  thy  God,,  with  all  thine 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might." 
This,  too,  cited  and  emphasized  as  it  is  by  our  blessed 
Saviour  himself,*  as  the  first  and  great  commandment. 
Moreover,  note  the  care  with  which  the  sacred  writers 
every  where  distinguish  and  keep  distinct  the  Father 
from  the  Son,  our  God  from  his  Anointed.  So  re- 
markable is  this  fact,  so  strong  and  emphatic  the  lan- 
guage in  which  it  expresses  itself,  that  one  is  almost 
tempted  to  think  they  foresaw  this  great  corruption  of 
subsequent  ages,  and  would  do  what  they  could  to 
guard  the  Church  against  any  confounding  of  Christ 
with  God.  For  example,  St.  Paul  says :  "  There  is 
none  other  GOD  but  One  ;  for  though  there  be  that 
are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth,  (as  there 
be  gods  many,  and  lords  many ;)  but  to  us  there  is  but 
One  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we 
in  him ;  and  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all 

*  Deut.  6:4;  Matt.  22 :  38  ;  Mark  12  :  29. 


52  THE  TEINITT. 

things,  and  we  by  Mm."  So  again  :  "  One  Lord,  one 
Faitli,  one  Baptism  ;  One  GOD  and  Father  of  all,  who 
is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you  all !"  *  In 
the  introductory  salutations  of  the  Apostolic  Epistles, 
mark  how  consistent  with  these  statements  is  the  lan- 
guage ;  holding  this  view,  how  naturally  it  expresses 
itself:  "  Grace  be  unto  you,  and  peace,  from  God,  our 
Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Blessed  be 
God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Father  of  mercies,  and  the  God  of  all  comfort."  This 
is  from  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians ;  but  you 
will  find  it  but  an  example  of  the  uniform  style  of  St. 
Paul,  and  with  the  slightest  possible  variation  of  the 
other  Apostles.  Then  further;  by  admission  of  distin- 
guished Trinitarian  scholars  and  divines,  even  of  Pro- 
testant communions,  as  we  have  seen,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  not  clearly,  but  at  the  most  obscurely 
taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  is  to  be  learned  by  unini- 
tiated readers,  not  from  the  Scriptures  but  from  the 
Church.  The  entire  Eomish  Church  takes  exactly  this 
ground,  and  in  its  extreme  form  ;  holding  that  though 
the  doctrine  be  in  the  Scriptures,  the  laity  cannot  find 
it  there,  since  it  is  in  charge  of  the  Church  through  its 
traditions,  and  to  the  Church  must  they  come  to  learn 
it.  Since  my  residence  in  Brooklyn,  the  Eev.  Dr.  Sea- 
bury,  of  New- York,  one  of  the  most  learned  ministers 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  at  that  time  editing  The 
Churchman^  declared  in  its  columns,  that  there  were  two 
rules  for  the  guidance  of  Christian  believers  :  the  one, 
the  Rule  of  Faith,  which  regarded  all  things  ;plamly 

*  1  Cor.  8:4-6;  Ephes.  4 :  5,  6. 


THE  TEINITY.  53 

taught  in  Scripture,  the  conduct  of  life,  and  the  duties 
of  man;  the  other,  the  Eule  of  Tradition,  which  re- 
garded things  obscurely  taught  there,  for  example,  the 
Trinity^  etc.  Again,  the  various  and  contradictory 
forms  of  stating  and  expounding  the  doctrine,  the  dif- 
ferent senses  in  which  it  is  accepted  and  held,  raise  a 
violent  presumption  against  the  doctrine  as  belonging 
to  Christ's  holy  gospel ;  suggest  and  furnish  reasons 
for  the  weightiest  doubts  of  its  truth  ;  and,  at  the  very 
least,  stamp  it  as  unimportant,  and  refute  all  pretension 
to  its  being  fundamental  and  essential.  Any  doctrine 
essentially  belonging  to  Eevealed  Eeligion,  would  be 
clearly  stated  in  the  Kecords  of  that  Eevelation ;  it 
would  be  so  clearly  stated  there,  that  nobody  could 
mistake  it ;  it  would  be  one  and  uniform  in  all  ages 
of  the  Church,  and  every  where  in  Christendom. 

Here  remember,  that  no  such  words  or  phrases  as  the 
Trinity,  the  Triune  God,  the  G-od-man,  occur  in  Scrip- 
ture. They  savor  certainly  far  more  of  the  subtleties 
of  the  schoolmen  than  of  the  simjDlicity  of  Holy  writ. 
But  not  only  are  no  such  words  and  phrases  to  be 
found  there,  where  is  the  known  case  of  any  man  for 
the  first  time  taking  these  Scriptures  into  his  hands, 
whether  in  the  original  or  in  translation,  in  any  lan- 
guage, in  any  land,  with  no  previous  knowledge  of  the 
religion  they  teach,  with  no  preconceptions  of  Christ- 
ian doctrine  of  any  kind,  and  of  himself  finding  there 
the  dogmas  which  those  words  and  phrases  are  made 
to  cover?  "Where,  in  the  authentic  records  of  any 
Christian  missionary  labors,  throughout  the  world,  Pa- 
pal or  Protestant,  is  there  such  an  experience  ?  I  con- 
fidently believe,  nowhere.     No  such  case  can  be  cited. 


54  THE   TEINITY. 

ISTo  sucli  experience  is  recorded  or  known.  On  tlie 
otlier  hand  we  can  produce  two,  eacli  beyond  challenge 
for  simplicity  and  integrity,  though  very  opposite  in 
personal  conditions  and  circumstances,  of  men  who 
found  in  their  own  independent  search  of  the  Bible, 
the  one  in  the  original  languages  in  which  it  was 
written,  the  other  in  a  translation  into  his  vernacular 
tongue,  the  doctrine  of  the  strict  simple  Unity  of  Grod, 
the  Father,  and  the  subordination  and  inferiority  there- 
fore of  our  blessed  Lord.  I  refer  to  the  late  Eajah 
Earn  Mohun  Eoy,  at  Calcutta,  and  William  Eoberts, 
at  Madras.  The  one,  a  high-caste  Brahmin,  accom- 
plished in  all  the  learning  of  the  Orient;  having  every 
advantage  of  wealth,  social  position,  and  personal  cul- 
ture. The  other,  a  native  of  the  lowest  caste,  the  ser- 
vant of  an  English  resident  merchant,  uneducated, 
obscure,  and  poor.  The  latter  read  the  Bible  in  a 
translation  into  his  own  tongue,  but  could  not  find 
there  the  doctrine  which  the  Liturgy  of  his  master's 
Church,  the  Church  of  England,  embodied,  but  only 
our  own  simple  Unitarian  faith.  The  former  sought  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures,  and  studied  them  pro- 
foundly, with  the  same  result.  The  Baptist  Mission 
House  at  Serampore,  of  which  Dr.  Marshman  was  at 
the  head,  anxious  to  show  him  his  mistake,  detailed,  as 
their  most  learned  associate,  the  Eev.  Wm.  Adam,  to 
confer  with  and  convince  the  Eajah  of  his  error,  and 
lead  him  to  the  truth.  But  lo  !  the  Eajah  refuted  his 
teacher,  and  converted  Mr.  Adam  to  Unitarianism  ; 
and  when  the  Eev.  Mr.  Schmidt  of  the  Baptist  Mis- 
sion, and  Dr.  Marshman,  saw  fit  to  animadvert  in  The 
Friend  of  India^  of  which  the  latter  was  editor,  upon 


THE   TRINITY,  55 

the  first  Christian  publication  of  Earn  Mohun  Roy, 
entitled  "  The  Precepts  of  Jesus,"  etc.,  being  extracts 
from  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  a  discussion  arose 
between  the  Rajah  and  Dr.  M.,  in  which  the  former 
showed  himself  a  most  skilful,  able,  and  learned  critic, 
and  as  a  controversialist  displayed  the  most  generous 
Christian  temper.  His  "  Final  Appeal"  closed  the 
controversy.  Such  cases,  though  they  do  not  abso- 
lutely prove  the  truth  of  Ilnitarianism,  do  yet,  espe- 
cially in  the  absence  of  similar  cases  on  the  opposite 
side,  increase  the  antecedent  probability  that  it  has  a 
prevailing  Scripture  basis,  and  in  the  Christian  Church 
has  a  right  to  be. 

Where,  then,  do  we  stand  ?  We  desire,  we  aim  to 
get  back  to  the  original,  simple,  primitive  Christianity — 
the  Christianity  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  ;  to  recover 
the  faith  which  was  in  the  beginning,  long  before  the 
age  of  Systematic  Theology.  Systematic  Theology — 
what  is  it  the  world  over,  but  the  piling  up  of  human 
opinions?  "Jesus,"  says  Hagenbach,  "is  not  the  au- 
thor of  a  dogmatic  theology^  but  the  '  author  and  finisher 
of  our  faith' ;  not  the  founder  of  a  school,  but  em- 
phatically the  founder  of  religion  and  of  the  Church." 
Again  he  says  :  "  The  first  disciples  of  the  Lord  were, 
like  their  Master,  far  from  propounding  dogmatic  sys- 
tems."'^' So  Neander :  "  When,  in  the  after  course  of 
development,  the  power  of  Christ's  spirit,  which  subor- 
dinated the  human  element  to  itself,  no  longer  predom- 
inated, but  the  human  individuality  asserted  its  own 
importance,  then  partial  systems  arose,  running  counter 

*  Higt.  of  Doctrines,  vol.  i,  pp.  33,  35. 


56  THE  TRINITY. 

to  eacL.  other,  wliicli,  in  one  way  and  another,  did 
great  injury  to  the  cause  of  divine  truth. ""'^  Our  ap- 
peal, therefore,  is  finally  and  confidently  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. We  hold  no  peculiar  or  distinguishing  doctrine 
which  cannot  be  stated  in  the  express,  unaltered,  un- 
qualified words  of  Holy  writ  ;  a  thing  which  our 
Trinitarian  brethren  cannot  do  for  theirs. 

But  we  are  charged  with  holding  mere  denials,  with 
holding  a  purely  negative  faith.  We  answer  that  we 
do  deny,  in  every  way  and  form  in  which  it  is  ever 
stated  by  those  from  whom  we  difier,  the  Trinity.  We 
do  deny  that  God  subsists  in  Three  Persons,  in  every 
intelligible  or  proper  sense  of  that  expression.  We  do 
deny  the  j^ropriety  of  speaking  of  or  addressing  either 
the  Son  or  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  Supreme  God.  We 
do  deny  the  right,  the  propriety,  the  Gospel  lawfulness 
of  worshipping  either  of  them  as  the  Supreme  God.  In 
these  denials  we  glory  ;  because  our  allegiance  to  Scrip- 
ture, our  very  reverence  of  God,  our  loyalty  and  obe- 
dience to  Christ,  compel  us  to  make  them.  But  is  this 
all  ?  Have  we  nothing  but  denials,  negations  ?  Far, 
very  far  from  it.  We  affirm  as  distinctly,  as  emphatic- 
ally as  any,  a  positive.  Scriptural  faith.  We  affirm  the 
strict,  simple,  undivided  Unity  of  GOD.  We  affirm 
that  He  is  One  Person,  One  Being,  One  Conscious  In- 
telligence. We  affirm  that  the  FATHER  alone  is  tlje 
GOD  of  the  New  Testament.  We  affirm  that  to  Him 
only  are  our  prayers,  supplications,  confessions,  adora- 
tion, thanksgivings,  praises,  our  supreme  homage  and 
worship  due.     And  finally,  we  affirm  our  full  and  un- 

*  Hist,  of  the  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  337,  Gth  Boston  Ed. 


THE  TRINITY.  67 

questioning  faitli  in  the  Fatlier,  in  the  Son,  nnd  in  the 
Holy  Grhost ;  we  affirm  it  as  sincerely,  devoutly, 
heartily,  gratefully,  as  any  who  bear  the  Christian 
name,  and  call  Christ  Master  and  Lord. 

Thus  denying,  and  thus  affirming,  we  stand  fast  by 
our  faith.  Our  confidence  is  in  Grod,  who  is  "  able  to 
make  us  stand."  "  To  his  own  Master"  we  know  and 
rejoice  that  "  each  standeth  or  falleth."  While,  there- 
fore, we  repudiate  all  that  weak  human  presumption 
which  might  wish  or  attempt  to  rule  us  out  of  the 
Christian  Church,  "  by  the  grace  of  God"  our  place  is 
there,  and  there  we  mean  to  stay.  But  we  rejoice  that 
we  stand,  however  firm  and  unquestioning  in  our  own 
positive  faith,  on  a  broad  and  generous  platform  of 
hope  for  the  world,  and  the  largest  charity.  We  have 
neither  hard  names  nor  harsh  treatment  for  any  from 
whom  we  dissent.  We  see  alike  in  all,  the  children  of 
One  God,  the  Universal  Father  of  the  one  great  family 
on  earth  and  in  heaven.  Differ  we  may,  nay,  differ  we 
must,  on  many  points  from  our  orthodox  brethren ; 
but  differ  as  we  may,  we  agree,  too,  in  far  more,  and 
those  the  more  important  ones,  would  they  but  be  just 
and  informed.  We  will  hold  our  differences  firmly  in" 
proportion  as  they  seem  to  us  important,  but  even  then 
charitably.  And  we  will  pray  and  strive,  as  the  great 
consummation,  that  we  may  thus  "  all  come  at  length 
into  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure 
of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ." 


LECTUEE    III 

INFERIORITY     AND      SUBORDINATION     OF     THE     LORD 
JESUS   CHRIST. 

My  present  object,  as  an  expounder  and  defender  of 
tlie  Unitarian  faith  is,  to  show  the  Inferiority  and 
Subordination  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  to 
the  Only  True  God  the  Father  ;  in  contradistinction  to 
the  popular  or  orthodox  behef  of  his  Supreme  Deity. 

On  this  point,  as  upon  all  points  of  Christian  faith, 
the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  must  be  final.  What- 
ever view  of  our  Lord  they  inculcate,  no  other  can  be 
maintained  by  any  Christian  believer,  by  any  Pro- 
testant at  least. 

A  thorough  investigation  of  this  subject  supposes 
of  course  that  we  have  first  the  true  text  of  the  original 
.Scripture  ;  or  second,  a  true  or  correct  Translation  of 
that  text.  If  it  be  urged  that  such  questions  are  be- 
yond the  reach  of  the  mass  of  readers,  I  must  admit 
that  they  are  ;  but  from  that  very  fact  springs  one  of 
the  most  serious  and  important  duties  of  the  Christian 
Ministry.  Why  set  apart  and  prepare  by  long  courses 
of  profound  and  laborious  study  and  mental  discipline, 
a  class  of  men  to  be  devoted  to  that  ministry,  if  it  be 
not  to  qualify  them  as  religious  teachers  as  well  as 
pastors  ;  to  interpret  on  their  responsibility  to  God 
the  Great  Charter  of  the  Christian  Faith  ;  to  give  the 


SUBORDINATION    OF   THE    LORD   JESUS    CHRIST.  59 

people  tlie  results  of  their  investigations ;  and  while, 
as  respects  every  thing  necessary  to  salvation,  the  sim- 
plest person  may  open  the  Bible  and  gain  all  needed 
light,  to  show  that  the  conclusions  which,  by  prayer 
and  study,  they  have  been  led  to  adopt,  are  to  be  taken 
as  true,  and  on  a  like  responsibility  received  and  held  ? 
Error  always  must  be  harmful  and  dangerous,  or  God 
would  not  have  interposed  by  His  revealed  word.  I 
do  not  say,  as  is  often  said  in  Christian  pulpits,  that 
unless  you  accept  the  Creed  of  a  particular  Church 
there  is  no  hope  of  salvation  for  you ;  but  I  do  say, 
that  if  there  be  error  in  any  Creed,  if  it  do  not  square 
throughout  in  every  part  and  parcel  with  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, no  matter  by  what  human  authority  imposed,  we 
are  unhesitatingly  bound  to  reject  it  ;  under  the  same 
solemn  responsibility  which  presses  upon  us  for  the 
right  use  of  every  talent,  opportunity,  privilege  which 
is  ours ;  nay,  more,  because  the  interests  involved  are 
paramount  to  any  earthly  considerations. 

A  thorough  investigation  supposes,  in  the  third 
place,  that  we  arrive  at  a  true  or  just  interpretation  of 
the  sacred  text.  Such  an  interpretation  must  greatly 
depend  upon  the  solution  of  the  question,  whether  the 
words  of  the  writer  are  to  be  taken  in  a  literal  or  in  a 
figurative  sense.  Undoubtedly  the  literal  sense  is  in 
all  cases  to  be  preferred,  except  it  violate  common 
sense ;  or  on  its  face  is  self-contradictory  or  absurd ; 
or  contradict  other  and  plain  statements  or  declarations 
of  Scripture — since  Scripture  must  be  consistent  and 
harmonious  with  itself.  Again  ;  obscure  passages  are 
to  be  explained  by  those  which  are  more  perspicuous, 
clear  and  explicit  ;  so  that,  wherever  possible.  Scrip- 


60  SUBORDINATION    OP  THE   LOED   JESUS   CHKIST. 

ture  may  explain  itself  or  be  its  own  interpreter.  Still 
again ;  the  great  principle  in  this  connection,  the  one 
always  to  be  borne  in  mind  is,  that  the  Bible  is  to  be 
interpreted  as  all  ancient  books  are  ;  that  no  supersti- 
tious feeling  of  its  peculiar  sanctity  is  to  disturb  or 
embarrass  that  natural  course  of  investigation  into  its 
contents  or  its  significance,  which  we  should  pursue  in 
the  study  of  any  other  ancient  record  which  has  come 
down  to  us.  Occasional  expressions  are  to  be  explained 
by  the  general,  pervading  sense  or  tenor  of  the  book. 
Strict  regard,  as  far  as  possible,  is  to  be  had  to  the 
time,  place,  circumstances  of  the  writer,  to  the  manners 
and  customs  of  the  age  and  country.  Ehetorical, 
figurative,  allegorical  expressions  or  allusions,  are  to 
be  specially  noted,  and  their  plain  import  and  meaning 
unfolded  and  made  clear.  For  example,  our  Lord  de- 
clares of  the  bread  at  the  Last  Supper,  "  This  is  my 
body" — of  the  Wine,  "  This  is  my  blood."  Deny  tlie 
principles  above  stated,  insist  on  the  literal  meaning 
of  Scripture  being  in  all  cases  accepted,  and  how  im- 
pregnable becomes  the  position  of  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Church,  including  as  it  does  to  this  hour  the  largest 
part  of  Christendom,  when  it  plants  itself  on  the  pre- 
cise words  of  Christ,  and  then  demands  assent  to  its 
astounding  dogma  of  Transubstantiation  ! 

"  If,"  says  the  late  Prof.  Stuart  of  Andover,  "  if 
there  be  any  book  on  earth  that  is  addressed  to  the 
reason  and  common  sense  of  mankind,  the  Bible  is 
preeminently  that  book.  What  is  the  Bible  ?  A  rev- 
elation from  God.  A  Eevelation  !  If  truly  so,  then 
it  is  designed  to  be  understood ;  for  if  it  be  not  intelli- 
gible, it  is  surely  no   revelation.     It   is   a   revelation 


SUBORDINATION   OF   THE   LORD   JESUS    CHRIST.  61 

throngh  tlie  medium  of  human  language  ;  language 
sucli  as  men  employ ;  such  as  was  framed  by  them, 
and  is  used  for  their  purposes.  It  is  a  revelation  hy 
men  (as  instruments)  and  for  men.  It  is  made  more 
humano  (after  the  manner  of  men)  because  that  on  any 
other  ground  it  might  as  well  not  be  made  at  all.  If 
the  Bible  is  not  a  book  which  is  not  intelligible  in  the 
same  way  as  other  books  are,  then  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  it  is  a  revelation.  There  are  only  two  ways  in 
which  the  Bible  or  any  other  book  can  be  understood  ; 
the  one  is  by  miraculous  illumination,  in  order  that  we 
may  have  a  right  viev\r  of  contents  which  otherwise 
would  not  be  intelligible  ;  the  other  i^  by  the  applica- 
tion of  such  hermeneutical  (explanatory)  principles  as 
constitute  a  part  of  our  rational  and  communicative  na- 
ture." Again  he  says  :  "  The  Bible  is  to  be  interpreted 
in  the  same  way  as  other  books  are.  Why  not  ?  When 
the  original  Scriptures  were  first  spoken  or  written, 
(for  very  much  of  them,  in  the  Prophets  for  example, 
was  spolcen  as  well  as  written,)  were  they  designed  to 
be  understood  by  the  men  who  were  addressed  ?  Cer- 
tainly you  will  not  deny  this.  But  who  were  these 
men  ?  Were  they  inspired  ?  Truly  not ;  they  were 
good  and  bad,  wise  and  foolish,  learned  and  ignorant ; 
in  a  word,  of  all  classes,  both  as  to  character  and 
knowledge."* 

I  know  how  often  it  has  been  charged  that  Unit 
arians  are  always  prompt  to  find  interpolations,  flaws, 
false  readings,  mistakes,  and  so  forth,  in  the  sacred 
text.  But  not  more  so  than  others  who  are  com- 
petent to  the  work  of  criticism.     All  true  Biblical 

*  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  ii.  pp.  129,  130. 


62  SUBORDINATION    OF   THE   LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

criticism — a  science  wticli  has  in  our  own  day  made 
such  rapid  progress,  and  constitutes  so  important  a 
department  of  study  in  every  theological  school 
throughout  the  country  and  throughout  Christen- 
dom ;  which  has  numbered  on  the  lists  of  its  devo- 
tees some  of  the  noblest  minds  from  century  to  cen- 
tury, in  every  age  and  branch  of  the  church — Biblical 
criticism,  looks  to  the  purity  of  the  text,  before  engag- 
ing in  the  work  of  exegesis  or  interpretation.  Our 
Trinitarian  brethren  themselves  have  laid  the  Christian 
world  under  heavy  obligations  for  their  many  exam- 
ples of  impartial,  careful,  and  able  critics  and  exposi- 
tors of  the  sacred  text ;  and  let  it  be  remembered  that 
there  is  not  a  passage  in  the  Old  or  the  New  Testa- 
ment, ever  cited  upon  any  particular  point  in  contro- 
versy between  the  Unitarian  and  Trinitarian  or  ortho- 
dox churches,  concerning  which  we  have  not  the  high- 
est Trinitarian  authority  for  the  Unitarian  interpreta- 
tion. We  often  avail  ourselves  of  their  labors  gladly 
and  gratefully.  You  have  already  observed  this  in  my 
previous  Lectures,  and  you  will  observe  it  more  as  I 
proceed.  So  far  as  the  integrity  of  the  sacred  text 
itself  is  concerned,  we  are  indeed  indebted  for  the  very 
best  standard  editions  of  the  Grreek  New  Testament,  to 
the  indefatigable  industry  and  critical  exactness  of 
German  Trinitarian  critics  like  Grriesbach,  Lachmann, 
and  Tischendorf  Bishop  Marsh,  noting  the  ''severe" 
rules  which  Michaelis  recommended  for  the  revision 
and  re-editing  of  the  Greek  text,  says  of  Griesbach : 
"He  has  prescribed  to  himself  rules  equally  severe ; 
*  *  -x-  -J^-  «  for  he  has  admitted  critical  conjecture  in 
no  instance  whatsoever ;  and  where  he  has  expunged, 
corrected,  or  added,  the  evidence  (which  he  has  accu- 


SUBORDINATION   OF   THE   LORD   JESUS   CHRIST.  63 

ratelj  produced)  is,  in  point  of  autliority,  three  and 
four-fold  in  his  favor."*  All  biblical  scholars  at  home 
and  abroad,  acknowledge  that  an  epoch  in  the  criticism 
of  the  text,  commenced  with  the  first  publication  of 
Griesbach's  Greek  Testament,  in  1775-77 ;  and  now 
that  we  have  the  latest  results  of  Tischendorf's  and 
Tregelles'  researches  brought  down  almost  to  this  very 
hour,  we  maj^  safely  say,  "  that  the  means  which  we 
have  at  our  command  for  editing  the  Greek  ISTew  Tes- 
tament, very  far  exceed  those  which  we  possess  in  the 
case  of  any  ancient  heathen  writer  whose  works  have 
come  down  to  us."f  Eeally  it  seems  passing  strange, 
when  we  think  of  the  services  rendered  to  Truth,  the 
highest  Truth,  by  the  labors  of  such  men  as  I  have 
named,  that  it  should  ever  be  made  a  cause  of  reproach 
against  any  class  of  believers,  that  they  showed  them- 
selves anxious  to  have  the  sacred  text  in  its  utmost  pos- 
sible integrity,  jealous  for  its  entirest  purity.  Surely, 
if  it  were  worthy  the  devotion  of  a  life,  as  has  been  the 
case  with  so  many  of  the  classic  scholars  of  modern 
Europe,  to  settle  the  true  reading  of  some  old  Greek 
or  Latin  heathen  writer,  much  more  were  it,  when  the 
inquiry  involves  the  very  teachings  of  the  Anointed 
of  God,  and  of  the  chosen  and  inspired  heralds  of  his 
divine  gospel  to  the  world.ij: 

Let  me  in  passing  make  another  remark  on  what 
should  always  be  borne  in  mind  in  reading  and  study- 

*  Marsh's  Micliaelis,  vol.  ii.  p.  8*77,  note  2. 

f  Norton's  Statement  of  Reasons,  appendix,  note  C.  p.  440,  2d  ed. 

^  Griesbach's  Gr.  Test,  was  first  published  in  this  country  in  1808,  at 
Boston,  from  the  original  German  edition  ;  under  the  joint  care  of  the 
celebrated  Rev.  Mr.  Buckminster,  and  Mr.  "Wm.  Wells,  of  that  city ; 
both  Unitarians.  They  discovered  and  corrected  several  errors  in  the 
oriainal. 


64  SUBOEDIXATION   OF   THE  LORD   JESUS    CUEIST. 

ing  tlie  Scripture,  wlietlier  in  the  original  or  tlie  ver- 
nacular. The  punctuation,  the  divisions  into  chapters 
and  verses,  are  all  modern,  and  of  course  without 
authority.  The  most  ancient  MSS.  are  with  few  ex- 
ceptions without  any  points.  The  points  at  present  in 
the  N"ew  Testament  are  coeval  with  the  invention  of 
printing ;  and  in  the  early  printed  editions  varied  in 
their  placing  with  almost  every  fresh  issue.  The  di- 
vision into  chapters  still  in  use,  was  the  work  of  Car- 
dinal Hugo,  who  introduced  it  into  the  edition  of  the 
Bible  which  he  published  in  the  thirteenth  century. 
That  into  verses  is  still  more  modern ;  and  is  traced  to 
Eobert  Stephens,  who  introduced  it  into  his  edition  of 
1551.  The  titles  of  chapters,  and  running  inscriptions 
at  the  top  of  the  pages  in  our  English  Bibles  are  the 
work  of  King  James'  translators,  and  have  nothing 
corresponding  in  the  original  Scriptures.  Therefore, 
when  we  find  printed  over  the  first  chapter  of  St.  John's 
Gospel,  in  many  editions,  the  words,  "  The  Divinity 
and  Preexistence  of  Jesus  Christ,"  we  should  remem- 
ber that  they  are  merely  the  words  of  the  translators 
or  editors,  and  no  legitimate  part  of  the  Scripture ; 
they  are  wholly  without  authority,  and  may  be  re- 
jected by  every  reader.  The  Bible,  indeed,  when  pro- 
fessedly "  without  note  or  comment,"  should  be  printed 
without  these  titles  and  inscriptions,  since  they  vir- 
tually are  notes  or  comments,  and  often  mislead  the 
uninstructed,  who  mistake  them  as- parts  of  the  original 
book.  It  were  better  also,  as  in  some  modern  copies, 
that  the  Bible  should  be  printed  in  paragraphs ;  the 
divisions  of  chapters  and  verses  being  at  the  most, 
indicated  by  numerals  in  the  margin,  for  the  sake  of 


SUBORDINATION    OF   THE   LOUD   JESUS   CHKIST.  65 

convenient  reference.  These  divisions  often  break  the 
connection  and  mar  or  obscure  the  sense.  So  there  are 
many  words  in  our  English  version  which  are  printed 
in  the  Italic  character,  which  is  used  to  indicate  the 
fact  that  no  words  answering  to  them  exist  in  the  Greek 
text ;  but  they  were  inserted  by  the  translators  on  their 
own  authority  alone,  though  in  the  hope,  very  proba- 
bly, of  bringing  out  the  sense  more  clearly. 

After  these  simple  statements  as  preliminary,  I  pro- 
ceed to  the  precise  topic  before  us — the  Inferiority  and 
Subordination  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  contra-dis- 
tinguished from  his  Supreme  Deity.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  which  has  already  been  treated,  involves, 
and  indeed  declares,  according  to  the  popular  theology, 
the  Supreme  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ.  "Whatever  force, 
then,  belongs  to  the  argument  already  urged  against 
the  one,  equallj^  makes  against  the  other.  Inasmuch, 
however,  as  we  hear  nowadays  less  of  the  Trinity, 
and  more  of  the  Deity  of  Christ ;  as,  indeed,  this  is  the 
great  point  in  controversy  concerning  the  Saviour,  and 
is  in  some  quarters  so  stated,  pressed,  and  acted  upon, 
as  virtually  to  negative  or  destroy  any  proper  Trinity 
in  the  sense  of  Three  Coequal  Persons,  each  of  whom 
is  Grod,  it  becomes  necessary  very  carefully  to  consider 
the  topic  presented. 

Pray  remember  that  I  am  here  contending,  as  a 
Christian  Unitarian,  only  against  the  dogma  of 
Christ's  Supreme  Deity.  His  Divinity  is  not  in  contro- 
versy. The  attempt  is  constantly  made,  I  know,  to 
excite  odium  on  the  one  hand,  or  throw  dust  in  the 
eyes  of  inquirers  on  the  other,  by  alleging  that  Unit- 
arians do  not  believe  in  the  Divinity  of  the  Saviour, 


66  SUBORDINATION   OF   THE  LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

Nevertlieless  they  do,  as  firmly  and  earnestly  as  any 
branch,  of  the  Church.  A  being  may  be  Divine,  with- 
out being  the  Supreme  God,  and  such  is  Christ.  Unit- 
arians believe  in  his  Divinity.  They  regard,  honor, 
revere,  and  love  him,  as  the  Lord  and  Head  of  his 
Church ;  second  only  to  the  Supreme  Jehovah  in  the 
hearts  and  consciences  of  men ;  the  visible  vicegerent 
and  representative  of  the  Most  High. 

The  whole  tenor  and  drift  of  Holy  Scripture  must 
leave  this  view  profoundly  impressed  on  the  mind 
of  any  unbiassed  and  thoughtful  reader.  It  every 
where  expresses  the  reverse  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
Supreme  Deity;  every  where  imports  his  Inferior- 
ity and  Subordination  to  God,  even  the  Father.  To 
this  hour  the  existence  of  the  Jews  as  a  distinct 
people,  scattered  though  they  be  among  all  nations  of 
the  earth,  yet  holding  so  tenaciously  to  the  strict,  sim- 
ple, personal  Unity  of  God,  is  a  standing  testimony  to 
the  fact  that  their  sacred  books,  the  Old  Testament, 
contain  no  other  or  conflicting  doctrine.  To  this  day, 
the  assertion  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
and  of  the  Godhead  or  Supreme  Deity  of  Christ,  is 
the  great  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  the  conversion 
of  that  people.  And  no  wonder,  when  one  remembers 
how  uniform,  how  emphatic,  are  the  declarations  of 
the  strict  and  sole  Deity  of  their  Jehovah,  of  His  un- 
rivalled, underived  Sovereignty ;  the  solemn  manner 
in  which  those  declarations  were  at  various  times  pro- 
mulgated, and  the  awful  sanctions  by  which  they  were 
guarded.  I  confess  my  own  profoundest  amazement 
at  the  thought  that  any  unprejudiced  reader  of  the  Old 
Testament  record,  should  suppose  for  one  moment  that 


SUCORDINATIOX   OF   THE   LORD   JESUS   CHRIST.  67 

the  God  wliom  the  Jews  worshipped,  could  be  any 
other  than  strictly  One,  One  Person,  One  Being,  One 
GOD. 

Still,  we  sometimes  hear  it  asserted — loosely  enough, 
indeed — that  "  from  Genesis  to  Kevelation,  the  Bible 
teaches  the  Trinity  and  the  Godhead  of  Christ."  Aside 
of  this  language,  quite  too  loose  for  serious  consider- 
ation, there  are  some  texts  in  the  Old  Testament  which 
in  the  first  place,  it  is  proper  to  notice. 

The  first  is  Isaiah  7  :  14,  cited  and  applied  to  Christ 
in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  1  :  23 :  "  Behold,  a  virgin 
shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name 
Immanuel,  which"  (Immanuel)  "being  interpreted  is, 
God  with  us."  The  whole  force  of  the  argument  for 
our  Lord's  Supreme  Deity,  drawn  or  attempted  to  be 
drawn  from  this  passage,  consists  in  the  significance 
of  a  Hebrew  name,  and  its  being  applied  in  Matthew 
to  Christ.  But  it  was  a  common  Hebrew  custom  to 
give  names  to  children,  significant  or  commemorative 
of  Providential  or  Divine  favors  expected,  or  conferred 
at  the  time.  For  one  example  of  this,  you  have  the 
case  of  Hagar's  child,  whom  Abram  was  directed  by 
the  angel  to  call  Ishmael,  which  signifies,  God  shall 
hear,  or  God  hath  heard.  Gen.  16 :  11.  Admitting 
that  the  passage  in  Isaiah  -was  strictly  prophetic  of  our 
Lord,  even  Bishop  Lowth  says  that  in  its  "  historical " 
or  primary  sense  it  referred  to  a  child  then,  that  is,  in 
the  prophet's  time,  to  be  born ;  and  that  before  he 
should  reach  the  age  of  knowing  to  refuse  the  evil  and 
clioose  the  good,  that  is,  within  a  few  years,  (compare 
8:4,)  the   enemies   of  Judah  should  be  destroyed.* 

*  iiowth's  Is.  vol.  ii.  p.  85. 


68  SUBOEDINATION   OF   THE   LORD   JESUS   CHRIST. 

Hence  that  cliild  was  to  be  called  "  Grod  with  us" ;  God 
then  manifesting  Himself  remarkably  for  the  rescue 
of  His  people.  Take,  then,  "the  higher  secondary 
sense"  in  which  it  is  applied  in  Matthew  to  Christ,  and 
the  same  meaning  results.  At  his  Advent,  God  was 
in  him  about  to  bestow  the  choicest  spiritual  blessings 
on  mankind,  to  work  a  far  higher  deliverance  than 
that  of  Judah.  In  this  sense,  most  gratefully  do  all 
Christian  Unitarians  believe,  that  Jesus  is  Immanuel, 
God  with  us. 

But,  further  to  show  the  utter  fatility  of  any  attempt 
to  prove  the  Supremo  Deity  of  Christ  from  the  appli- 
cation of  this  name  to  him,  think  of  the  consequences 
to  which  such  a  mode  of  reasoning  must  lead.  The 
argument  proves,  if  it  j^i'ove  any  thiug,  altogether  too 
much.  If  the  name  Immanuel  applied  to  Christ  prove 
him  to  be  verily  God,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  name 
"  Abiel,"  which  is,  being  interpreted,  "God  my  Father ;'' 
or  "Eli,"  "My  God;"  or  "Elihu,"  "My  God  Him- 
self ;"  or  "  Elijah,"  "  God  the  Lord,  or  Jehovah  God  ;" 
or  "Ithiel,"  "God  with  me"  ?  Well  might  the  late 
Prof.  Stuart  admit  that — ^"  To  maintain,  as  some  have 
done,  that  the  name  '  Immanuel'  proves  the  doctrine 
in  question,  (Christ's  Divine  nature,)  is  a  fallaciou.s  argu- 
ment. Is  not  Jerusalem  called  '  Jehovah  our  righteous- 
ness' ?  And  is  Jerusalem  divine  because  such  a  name 
is  given  to  it  ?"^ 

Again,  there  is  the  passage  in  Isaiah  9:6:  "  Unto 
us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given,  and  the  gov- 
ernment shall  be  upon  his  shoulder;  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  Wonderful,   Counsellor,  The  Mighty 

*  Letters  to  Channing,  Miscel.  p.  148. 


SUBOEDIN'ATION   OF   THE   LORD   JESUS   CHRIST.  69 

God,  The  Everlasting  Father,  The  Prince  of  Peace." 
Admitting  this  passage  to  be  a  prophetic  description  of 
Christ,  it  is  obvious  that  the  argument  from  it  for  his 
Supreme  Deity  mainly  rests  on  the  two  titles — "the 
Mighty  God"  and  "  the  Everlasting  Father."  That  he 
is  "Wonderful,"  that  he  is  a  "  Counsellor"— nay,  a 
"  Wonderfal  Counsellor"  —  as  Castalio,  Doederlein, 
Gataker,  and  other  Trinitarians  read  the  two  words,  in 
connection,  and  have  high  Kabbinical  authority  there- 
for— that  he  is  "The  Prince  of  Peace,"  preeminently, 
gloriously,  no  believer  in  Christ  doubts  for  a  moment. 
But  what  is  the  force  of  the  other  two  phrases,  or  how 
are  they  applicable  to  him  ? 

As  to  the  first,  Aquila  the  Jew,  the  Seventy,*  The- 
odotian,  and  Symmachus,  in  their  ancient  Greek  ver- 
sions of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  last  of  them  not 
more  recent  than  the  year  200  of  our  era,  all  omit 
the  Hebrew  word  (Al)  rendered  in  our  version  Ood^ 
and  read  "Wonderful,  Counsellor,  Mighty."  Le 
Clerc,  a  profound  Biblical  Trinitarian  scholar  and 
critic,  translates  the  passage  —  "Wonderful,  Divine 
(Al)  Counsellor,  Mighty."  Grotius,  certainly  no  less 
distinguished,  also  a  Trinitarian — "  Consulter  of  the 
Mighty  God,"  i.  e.  one  who,  in  all  things,  asked  coun- 
sel of  God.     Gesenius  renders  the  phrase,   "  Mighty 

*  The  Septuagint  or  Seventy,  is  the  translation  into  Greek  of  the  He- 
brew Bible ;  executed,  probably,  by  or  under  direction  of  the  Jewish 
Sanhedrim  at  Alexandria,  which,  in  the  second  century  before  Christ, 
had  become  the  residence  of  great  numbers  of  that  people.  The  San- 
hedrim consisted  of  seventy  or  seventy-two  members  ;  hence  the  name 
of  the  Translation. 


70  SUBOEDINATION    OF   THE   LOED   JESUS    CUKIST. 

Hero."^  No  higlier  Hebraic  airtliority  can  be  quoted 
than  Gesenius.  In  Ezekiel  31 :  11  our  own  translators 
have  rendered  the  identical  Hebrew  phrase  into  the 
English  "Mighty  One."  Prof.  Noyes,  of  Harvard 
University,  renders  the  phrase  in  his  Translations  of 
the  Prophets,  volumes  w^hich  should  be  in  the  hands 
of  every  reader  of  the  Old  Testament,  "  Mighty  Po- 
tentate," and  in  this  substantially  agrees  with  Luther 
and  De  Wette,  and  as  above  wdth  Gesenius. 

Here,  surely,  is  ample  authority,  even  tlie  highest 
Trinitarian  authority,  for  understanding  the  phrase  in 
its  application  to  Christ,  in  a  sense  far  lower  than  that 
of  a  declaration  of  his  Supreme  Deity.  Besides,  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  were  familiar  with  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures, which  constituted,  indeed,  the  chief  literature  of 
the  nation.  They  constantly  quoted,  and  sought  and 
used  illustrations  from  them.  Is  it  credible  that  if  he 
or  they  ever  supposed  or  understood,  or  much  more 
knew,  that  Isaiah  had  in  this  passage  foreshadowed  or 
declared  his  Supreme  Deity,  they  never  should  have 
cited  or  referred  to  the  passage  ? 

As  to  the  second  phrase  —  "  Everlasting  Father," 
Bishop  Lowth  renders  it  in  his  translation — ''  Father 
of  the  Everlasting  Age"  or  dispensation,  that  is,  the 
Gospel ;  as  Bishop  Jewel,  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time 
says  :  "  Esay  saith  that  Christ  should  be  '  Pater  futuri 
seculi' ;  that  is,  the  Father  of  the  w^orld  to  come ; 
which  is,  the  time  of  the  Gospel."  With  this  agrees 
Grotius ;  while  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  renders  it  exactly 
like  Lowth.     The  Seventy  translate  it  "  Messenger  of 

*  In  his  Jesaia^  h.  1.  ;  as  cited  by  Gibbs  in  his  Hebrew  Lex.,  under 
''Al;"  Andover  ed.  1824. 


SUBORDIXATIOX    OF   THE   LORD   JESUS    CHKIST.  71 

the  Great  Counsel"  or  design,  and  Le  Clerc,  "Per- 
petual Father  ;"  because,  he  remarks,  "  Christ  is  per- 
petual or  everlasting  Father  of  all  who  shall  believe  in 
his  religion."  Prof.  Noyes  retains  the  rendering  of 
our  Eeceived  Version,  in  his  note  explaining  the 
words  to  mean,  very  much  like  Le  Clerc,  "perpet- 
ual guardian  and  friend  of  his  people."  Any  one  of 
these  various  interpretations  of  the  phrase,  obviously 
preserves  the  Sovereignty  and  Supremacy  of  God,  and 
subordinates  our  Lord  to  Him. 

The  entire  passage,  then,  may  thus  be  rendered,  on 
the  best  critical  authority — "  Wonderful,  Divine  Coun- 
sellor, Mighty  ;  Father  of  the  Everlasting  Age  ;  Prince 
of  Peace." 

One  more  passage  has  been  often  cited  by  our  Trini- 
tarian brethren,  and  which  I  would  briefly  notice.  It 
occurs  in  Jeremiah  23  :  5,  6  :  "Behold  the  days  come, 
saith  Jehovah,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous 
branch,  and  a  king  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  shall 
execute  judgment  and  justice  in  the  earth.  In  his 
days  Judah  shall  be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell 
safely  ;  and  this  is  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called, 
Jehovah  our  Eighteousness."  Allowing,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  this  text  refers  to  Christ,  which  is 
by  no  means  clear — for  Grotius  thinks  it  rather  refers 
to  King  Zerubbabel  and  the  release  of  the  Jews  from 
the  Babjdonish  Captivity — then  the  exposition  of  Prof, 
Koyes,  in  the  note  to  his  translation  of  the  passage 
well  expresses  the  prophet's  meaning.  "  This  symbol- 
ical name"  ("Jehovah  our  Eighteousness,"  or,  as  Dr. 
ISToyes  renders  it,  "  Jehovah-is-our-salvation")  "  was  to 
be  given  to  the  glorious  king,  the  Messiah  here  pre- 


72  SUBORDINATION    OF   THE   LOED   JESUS   CHRIST. 

dieted,  to  denote  that  Jehovali  would  bring  salvation 
to  his  people  b  j  his  means,  or  to  denote  what  is  said  in 
the  two  preceding  lines,  that  '  in  his  days  Judah  should 
be  saved,  and  Israel  dwell  secnrely.'  "'^  Dr.  Ad.  Clarke 
says:  "I  believe  Jesus  to  be  Jehovah;  but  I  doubt 
whether  this  text  calls  him  so.  No  doctrine  so  vitally 
important  should  be  rested  on  an  interpretation  so 
dubious  and  unsupported  by  the  text."f  Dr.  Blayney, 
in  his  note  on  the  passage,  having  rendered  it — "And 
this  is  his  name  which  Jehovah  shall  call,  Our  Kight- 
eousness," — says  :  "A  phrase  exactly  the  same  as  '  and 
Jehovah  shall  call  him  so' ;  which  ....  implies 
that  God  will  make  him  such  as  he  called  him,  that  is, 
'our  righteousness,'  or  the  author  and  means  of  our 

salvation  and  acceptance I  doubt  not  but 

some  ]3ersons  will  be  offended  with  me  for  depriving 
them,  by  this  translation,  of  a  favorite  argument  for 
proving  the  Divinity  (Deity)  of  our  Saviour  from  the 
Old  Testament.  But  I  cannot  help  it.  I  have  done  it 
with  no  ill  design,  but  purely  because  I  think,  and  am 
morally  certain,  that  the  text,  as  it  stands,  will  not  pro- 


*  N"oyes'  Prophets,  vol.  ii.  p.  2'73.  Dr.  Noyes  adds  in  his  note  : 
"  In  regard  to  the  rendering  salvation,  it  is  a  secondary  signification  of 
the  original  term,  which,  denoting  righteousness,  was  used  to  denote  the 
favor  of  God  consequent  upon  it,  and  hence,  deliverance,  llessings,  salva. 
Hon.  See  Gescnius'  Lex.  That  the  substantive  verb  (is)  should  be 
supplied,  is  evident  from  the  application  of  the  name  to  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  in  ch.  83  :  16,  and  from  the  application  of  similar  names  to 
various  persons  in  the  Old  Testament ;  for  instance,  Elijah.  It  is  not 
at  all  probable  that  he  was  called  My  God  the  Lord,  or  My  God,  Jehovah, 
but  Jehovah  is  my  God.  So  the  common  version  correctly  rendera 
Ezek.  48 :  35,  'The  Lord  is  there.' " 

f  Clarke's  Commentary,  h.  1.  note. 


SUBORDINATION    OP   THE   LOKD   JESUS    CHRIST.  '73 

perly  admit  of  any  other  construction.  The  LXX.  have 
so  translated  it  before  me,  in  an  age  when  there  could 
not  possibly  be  any  bias  of  prejudice  either  for  or 
against  the  before-mentioned  doctrine  ;  a  doctrine 
which  draws  its  decisive  proofs  from  the  New  Testament 
onlyy^ 

It  may  be  "a  favorite  argument,"  but  surely  it  were 
a  most  inconclusive  one.  The  very  course  of  reason- 
ing, which  would  from  this  passage  prove  the  proper 
and  Supreme  Deity  of  Christ,  would,  from  Exodus 
17  :  15,  prove  the  same  of  the  altar  which  Moses  built 
after  the  defeat  of  Amalek,  or  from  chaj).  83  :  16  of 
this  same  prophet,  prove  the  proper  and  Supreme 
Deity  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  Precisely  the  same 
language  is,  in  the  last-named  passage,  applied  to 
her. 

What  the  "  decisive  proofs  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment" are,  we  shall  see  by  and  by.  What  sort  of 
proofs  are  devisable  and  relied  upon  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament we  have  now  seen.  Kone  stronger  or  more 
"decisive"  than  those  we  have  examined,  are  cited 
tlierefrom  by  any  class  of  Trinitarians  to  prove  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  Deity.f 

That  Christ  is  a  God  in  a  just  sense,  in  the  sense  in 

*  Blayney's  Jerem.  h.  I.  note. 

f  While  these  Lectures  were  in  process  of  delivery,  my  attention  was 
called  by  an  anonymous  note  to  Daniel  3  :  25,  where  Nebuchadnezzar 
said :  "  And  the  form  of  the  fourth  is  like  the  Son  of  God."  It  is 
enough  to  say  that  Wintle,  having  rendered  the  passage  "a  Son  of 
God,"  on  the  authority  of  Jerom  and  Symmachus,  interprets  it  in  his 
note — "  Some  angelic  appearance."  But  the  king  himself,  in  verse  28, 
adverts  again  to  the  "appearance,"  and  expressly  calls  it  God's  "An- 
gel."— V»'intle's  Daniel,  p.  56,  note. 

•A 


74  SUBOKDINATION    OF   THE   LOED   JESUS    CHRIST. 

•wMcli  lie  himself  (John  10  :  35)  explained  of  others — 
as  one  "to  whom  the  word  of  Grod  came" — is  beyond 
question.  In  this  sense,  Angels — Moses — Samuel — the 
Kings  and  Judges  of  Israel,  are  called  gods.  Seventeen 
passages  at  least  of  this  character  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Old  Testament."^  The  question,  therefore,  is  not 
whether  Christ  is  ever  called  in  Scripture,  or  even 
whether  he  be,  a  Grod  ;  but  in  what  sense  ?  And  then, 
I  repeat,  on  his  own  express  authority  in  the  text  just 
cited  from  St.  John's  Gospel,  he  is  a  God  as  being  pre- 
emifiently  one  ''  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came." 
This  was  his  vindication  of  himself  when  charged  by 
the  cavilling  Jews  around  him  with  blasphemy,  because 
he  had,  as  they  alleged — "  being  a  man,  made  himself 
God."  In  no  other  sense  was  he  a  God.  This,  we 
af&rm,  is  the  obvious  sense.  Not  that  he  was  the  Su- 
preme God,  the  one  Living  and  True  God,  the  God 
over  all ;  because  Scripture  forbids  such  a  belief  To 
believe  that,  we  should  demand  nothing  less,  certainly, 
than  the  clear,  express,  unqualified,  unmistakable  de- 
clarations and  testimony  of  Holy  Writ.  Let  us  pass, 
then,  to  the  New  Testament. 

What  I  said  before  of  the  entire  Scripture,  holds 
specially  true  of  the  New  Testament,  that  its  general 
tenor  and  drift  are  entirely  adverse  to  the  dogma  of 
the  Supreme  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  express  his  in- 
feriority and  subordination  to  the  Father,  as  "  the  Only 
True  God."  Do  you  ask,  what  I  mean  by  the  gen- 
eral tenor  and  drift  of  Scripture  ?     Precisely  what  is 

*  E.  g.  Ps.  8  :  5  ;  Judges  13  :  22  ;  Exod,  '7  :  1  ;  1  Samuel  28  :  13, 
14;   Ps.  82  :  1,  6  ;    Exod.  15  :  11,  etc. 


SUBOEDINATION    OF   THE   LORD   JESUS    CHEIST.  75 

meant  wlien  the  phrase  is  applied  to  any  other  book — 
namely,  the  first,  the  prevailing,  the  obvious  impression, 
made  by  a  careful  perusal  of  the  whole ;  as,  for  in- 
stance, when  one  reads  the  ^neid  or  the  Iliad,  no  doubt 
is  felt  that  Virgil  and  Homer  were  polytheists.  So  in 
the  'New  Testament,  the  first  and  the  most  obvious  im- 
pression made  is,  that  our  Lord  is  the  Son  of  God,  and 
not  God  himself;  that  God  is  One  and  Supreme ;  that  the 
doctrine  of  its  pages  is  consistent  and  uniform  through- 
out, on  this  point,  with  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 
One  of  the  scribes  asked  Jesus  :  "  Which  is  the  first 
commandment  of  all  ?"  And  he  replies  in  the  very 
words  of  Moses  :  "  Hear,  O  Israel !  the  Lord  our  God 
is  One  Lord.  And  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  with  all 
thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind, 
and  with  all  thy  strength."^  Accordingly,  his  con- 
stant allusions,  his  uniform  habits  of  speech,  his  prayers, 
his  whole  deportment,  are  in  perfect  and  unbroken 
sympathy  with  this  idea  and  doctrine,  nay,  with  this 
grand  paramount  truth.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
Apostles. 

But,  more  particularly ;  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment, Christ  is  uniformly  kept  distinct  or  distinguished 
from  God.  If  distinct,  then,  of  course,  inferior — then 
not  God  Supreme.  How  explicit  his  own  language ! 
"  This  is  Life  Eternal,  to  know  Thee,  the  Only  True 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  Thou  hast  sent."f    "We 

*  Mark  12  :  28-30. 

f  John  17:3.  These  most  explicit  words  of  our  Lord  were  uttered  in 
solemn  prayer  to  his  God  and  our  God,  under  circumstances  and  "  at  a 
moment  fitted  above  all  others  for  a  clear  and  full  declaration  of  the  fun- 
damental article  of  Christian  belief"    I  c[uote  the  words  of  Prof.  Hunt- 


76  SUBOEDINATION   OF  THE  LOED  JESUS   CHEIST. 

have  peace  wifh  God,"  says  St.  Paul,  "through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  *  Two  beings  are  here  cer- 
tainly brought  into  view.  Quite  as  explicit  as  his 
Masters  is  the  same  Apostle's  language  to  Timothy  :  f 
"  One  God,  and  One  Mediator  between  God  and  man, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus."  The  Apostolic  benedictions  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Epistles,  are  in  corresponding 
form.  "  Grace  to  you  and  peace  from  God,  our  Father, 
and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  :|:  So  throughout 
Paul's  Epistles.  James  begins  thus :  "  James,  a 
servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Peter 
says :  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  §  John  in  his  second  Epistle  :  "  Grace 
be  with  you,  mercy  and  peace,  from  God  the  Father, 
and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Father''''  || 
— ^he  adds,  as  though  he  would  have  no  mistake  on 
this  matter.  These  are  examples  of  what  is  the  uniform 
style  of  the  Apostolic  Epistles,  in  which  in  seventeen 
passages  this  distinction  is  most  carefully  observed, 
and  in  which  one  Being  alone  is  always  called  Ood^  the 
other,  without  exception,  Zord     So  in  their  ascriptions, 

ington,  at  the  beginning  of  his  Sermon  on  the  Trinity,  in  his  recently 
published,  and  in  its  practical  portions  admirable  volume,  entitled 
"  Christian  Believing  and  Living,"  The  words  are  indeed  differently  ap- 
phed  by  him,  but  are  specially  pertinent  to  the  case  in  hand.  That  sermon 
I  have  carefully  studied,  and  cannot  find  in  it  the  least  strength  added  to 
the  Trinitarian,  or  the  first  flaw  detected  in  the  Unitarian  argument. 
If  my  readers  would  see  the  essential  weakness  of  that  sermon  itself 
made  manifest,  let  them  turn  to  the  masterly  review  of  it  in  the  Christ- 
ian Examintr  for  March,  1860,  and  the  "  Two  Discourses"  of  Rev. 
Thos.  Starr  King,  delivered  Jan.  7  and  14,  1860,  published  in  pam- 
phlet, by  Crosby,  Nichols  &.  Co.,  Boston. 

*  Rom.  5:1.  f  1  Tim.  2:5.  %  Rom.  1 :  V. 

8  1  Peter  1 ;  3.  11  2  John  5  :  3. 


SUBORDINATION    OF   THE   LOED   JESUS   CHEIST.  11 

the  same  is  observable.  Thus,  St.  Paul :  "To  God 
only  wise,  be  glory,  through  Jesus  Christ,  forever."* 
"Giving  thanks  always  for  all  things  to  God  and  the 
Father,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."t  "  We 
give  thanks  to  God  and  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. ":j:  "Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "§  God  is  spoken  of  repeatedly  as 
being  "with  Christ."]  Eleven  passages  in  St.  John's 
Gospel  alone,  assert  that  Jesus  "came  from  God" — 
"  went  to  God."Tf  Twice  in  his  Epistles,  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  Christ  as  "  the  image  of  God."'^*  In  one  he  is  called 
"  the  express  image  of  God."tt  In  one  he  is  said  to 
be  "in  the  form  of  God."  J:j:  Whatever  these  passages 
and  expressions  mean,  they  assuredly  show  distinction 
of  being. 

Again ;  Christ  is  expressly  declared  to  be  inferior 
and  subordinate  to  God  the  Father.  He  himself  said  : 
"  My  Father  ...  is  greater  than  all  ;"§§  and  yet 
more  precisely  ;  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I."  |||| 
He  is  said  to  be  "chosen,"  "appointed,"  "inspired," 
"  sanctified,"  by  God;  "anointed,"  "given,"  HT  and 
thirty -five  times  in  St.  John's  Gospel  alone,  "sent"  by 
God.  It  is  recorded,  that  he  came  to  do  his  Father's 
will— came  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.***     In  St.  Mat- 

*  Rom.  16 :  27.      f  Ephes.  5  :  20.     X  Col.  1:3.       §  1  Peter  1 :  3. 

II  e.  g.  John  3:2;  Acts  10  :  38.        ^  e.  g.  3  :  2 ;  8  :  42  ;  13  :  3. 

**  2  Cor.  4  :  ^  ;  Col.  1:15.  f  f  Heb.  1:3.         Xt  ^^^-  2  :  6. 

§§  John  10  :  29.  ||  ||  John  14  :  28. 

^Tf  Matt.  12 :  18 ;  Luke  4  ;  18  ;  John  3  :  34.  Any  concordance  will 
furnish  the  reader  with  references  to  the  texts  of  Scripture,  which  are 
too  numerous  to  be  pited  here. 

***  John  4  :  34  ;  6  :  38  ;  12  :  49  ;  Matt.  21  :  9. 


18  SUBOEDINATION   OF   THE  LOED   JESFS   CHRIST. 

thew's  Gospel  lie  is  called  tlie  "Servant"  of  God* 
Surely,  the  Being  wlio  is  chosen,  appointed,  inspired, 
sanctified,  etc.,  by  another,  must  be  inferior  to  Him. 
Coming,  nay,  sent  to  do  His  will,  and  receiving  his 
commandment,f  he  must  be  subordinate  to  him.  The 
epithet,  servant,  however  "  honorable,"  as  Mr.  Yates 
says,  "  on  account  of  the  majesty  of  the  person  served," 
nevertheless  speaks  for  itself  as  expressive  of  the  infe- 
riority and  subordination  of  our  Lord  to  his  God  and 
Father,  for  which  I  contend.:]: 

But  again ;  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  Christ 
are  declared  to  be  derived  ;  and  if  this  be  possible,  if 
this  be  so,  he  must  be  inferior  to  the  Source  of  that 
wisdom  and  knowledge,  to  the  Being  from  whom  he 
received  it.  "The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth 
him  all  things  that  himself  doeth ;  and  he  will  show 
him  greater  works  than  these,  that  ye  may  marvel." 
"  Jesus  answered  them  and  said :  My  doctrine  is  not 
mine,  but  his  that  sent  me.  If  any  man  will  do  his 
will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of 
God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself."  "I  have  not 
spoken  of  myself;  but  the  Father  which  sent  me,  he 
gave  me  a  commandment,  what  I  should  say  and  what 
I  should  speak.  .  .  .  Whatsoever  I  speak  therefore, 
even  as  the  Father  said  unto  me,  so  I  speak."  §  What 
language  could  be  more  intelligible  or  emphatic  ?    How 

*  Matt.  12  :  18.  In  Acts  8  :  26  ;  4  :  21,  30,  the  word  is  the  same  in 
the  Greek  as  in  Matthew,  and  should  be  translated  as  there.  Vidj^ 
Robinson's  Lexicon  of  New  Testament,  p.  608. 

f  John  12  :  49  ;  14  :  31.  ^  Yates'  Yind.  p.  81. 

§  John  5  :  19.  See  the  whole  passage  to  v.  30,«,s  bearing  through- 
out on  the  point  at  issue.     Id.  8 :  16,  1*7 ;  12  :  49,  50. 


SUBOKDIXATION    OF    THE   LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  79 

impressive,  in  connection  witli  the  words  of  Isaiali  !* 
"Who  hath  directed  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  or  being 
His  counsellor,  hath  taught  Him?  With  whom  took 
He  counsel,  and  who  instructed  Him,  and  taught  Him 
in  the  path  of  judgment,  and  taught  Him  knowledge, 
and  showed  to  Him  the  way  of  understanding  ?"  More- 
over, our  Saviour  admits  that  his  knowledge  was  lim- 
ited; and  consequently.  Omniscience,  the  knowledge 
of  all  things,  knowledge  without  limitation,  and  which 
is  an  essential,  necessary  attribute  of  the  Supreme  Grod, 
is  not  predicable  of,  does  not  belong  to  Christ.  "  Of 
that  day  and  hour,"  said  he,  "  knoweth  no  mxan;  no, 
not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven  ;  neither  the  Son  ; 
but  the  Father."  Thus  in  Mark's  Gospel,  while  Mat- 
thew reads,  "but  my  Father  only."f  The  Father, 
then,  knew  some  things  which  the  Son  did  not  know. 
If  you  say,  one  thing,  that  makes  no  important  differ- 
ence. If  He  pleased  to  reserve  even  but  one  thing  from 
his  Son's  knowledge,  that  is  enough  to  show  the  inferior- 
ity, subordination,  dependence  of  the  Son.  The  Ian-, 
guage  of  our  Lord  is  very  remarkable.  Had  he  then 
in  his  mind,  all  that  some  of  his  followers  to  this  day 
have  held  and  taught  in  mystification  of  himself,  it 
could  hardly  have  been  more  distinct.  "  Ko  marH'' 
knows  of  it ;  then  of  course  in  his  human  nature — in 
which  Christ  was,  both  in  body  and  soul  human,  a 
man^  according  to  the  popular  theology — our  Lord  did 
not  know  of  it.  The  "  angels"  do  not.  "  The  Son" 
does  not.  This  title  "  the  Son,"  must  be  taken  ac- 
cording to  the  popular  theology,  to  denote  our  Lord's 

*  40  :  13,  14.  I  Mark  13  :  32  ;  Matt.  24  :  36. 


80  SUBORDINATION   OF  THE  LORD   JESUS   CHRIST. 

Divine  nature,  his  Godhead ;  and  even  in  that,  then,  he 
did  not  know  "  of  that  day  or  honr."  To  the  Father 
only  did  that  knowledge  belong ;  and  hence  our  Lord's 
inferiority,  subordination,  dependence  on  the  Father 
for  all  that  divine  knowledge  he  possessed. 

His  Power,  also,  was  derived ;  and  in  that  respect, 
therefore,  he  was  subordinate  to  God  the  Father  from 
whom  he  received  it.  1.  While  he  was  upon  earth,  the 
witnesses  of  his  miraculous  works  ascribed  them  to 
God,  as  his  gift.  After  he  had  cured  the  paralytic, 
"  the  multitudes,"  says  the  Evangelist,  "glorified  God 
which  had  given  such  power  unto  men."  *  When  he 
had  called  back  to  life  the  widow's  son,  the  standers-by 
"  glorified  God,"  and  said :  "  God  hath  visited  his  peo- 
ple." f  The  Apostles,  after  the  ascension  of  their  Lord, 
preaching  his  Gospel  to  Jews  and  Heathen,  thus  spoke : 
"Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among 
you  by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs,  which  God 
did  by  him,  in  the  midst  of  you."  "God  anointed  Je- 
sus of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  Power; 
who  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were 
oppressed  of  the  devil:  for  God  was  with  him."  X  How 
express,  too,  is  his  own  language :  "  All  things  are  deliv- 
ered unto  me  of  my  Father."§  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing 
of  himself  .  .  .  the  Father  hath  given  him  authority 
...  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing  .  .  .  the  works 
which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  the  same 
v^rorks  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the  Father 
hath  sent  me."  11     Then  remember  his  words  at  the 


*  Matt.  9:8.  f  Luke  7:16.  %  Acts  2  :  22  ;  10  :  38. 

§  Matt.  11  :  2*7 ;  Luke  10  :  22.  ||  John  5:19,  27,  30,  36. 


SUBORDINATION   OF   THE   LOED   JESUS    CHKIST.  81 

grave  of  Lazarus.  Martha  evidently  had  no  other 
ground  of  confidence  in  his  power  than  as  the  gift  of 
God.  "  I  know,"  she  said,  "  that  even  now,  whatso- 
ever thou  wilt  ask  of  God,  God  will  give  it  thee." 
Our  Lord  seems  to  have  "  asked  ;"  for  he  "  lifted  up 
his  eyes  and  said,  Father,  I  thank  thee  that  thou  hast 
heard  me  !  And  I  know  that  thou  hearest  me  always ; 
but  because  of  the  people  which  stand  by,  I  said  it,  that 
they  may  believe." — Believe — what  ?  That  I  do  this  by 
my  own  independent  power?  No ;  but  "that  they  may 
believe  that  Thou  hast  sent  me."  As  if  he  had  said :  "For 
the  very  purpose  of  convincing  these  people  of  my  di- 
vine mission,  I  thus  publicly,  solemnly,  express  my  de- 
pendence on  Thee  for  the  Power,  Thy  Gift,  which  I  am 
about  to  exercise."* 

2.  In  his  state  of  exaltation,  after  he  had  left  the 
earth,  God  is  still  the  acknowledged  source  of  his 
power  ;  while  the  very  fact  that  he  is  or  could  be  "  ex- 
alted," implies  his  subordination  and  inferiority  to  the 
Being  who  did  or  could  exalt  him.  After  his  Eesur- 
rection,  and  when  about  to  ascend,  to  "  leave  the  world 
and  go  to  the  Father,"  giving  his  parting  commission 
to  the  Apostles,  he  said  :  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me 
in  heaven  and  in  earth."f  He  did  not  even  then  say, 
when  his  personal  mission  on  earth  in  the  flesh  was 
"  finished" — as  though  he  were  about  to  resume  a  place, 
an  authority,  a  power  which  he  had  once  abandoned — 
"All  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is  mine  again  ;"  or, 
"  All  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  which  of  course  T 
could  not  possess  in  that  human  nature  which  I  now 

*  John  11  :  22,  41,  42.  f  Matt.  28  :  18. 


82  SUBOEDINATION    OF  THE   LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

lay  aside,  but  in  my  Divine  Nature  ever  held  and  still 
hold;"  but  he  said:  "All  power  in  heaven  and  in 
earth"  in  the  exalted  state  to  which  the  Father  now 
raises  me,  "is  given  unto  me."  This  is  the  obvious 
significance  of  his  words,  and  amply  borne  out  by 
other  passages.  "  I  appoint  unto  you,"  he  said  to  the 
disci23les  at  the  Last  Supper,  "  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father 
hath  appointed  unto  me."*  At  the  effusion  of  the 
Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter's  words  were : 
"This  Jesus  hath  Grod  raised  up,  whereof  we  are  wit- 
nesses. Therefore,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God 
exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye 

now  see  and  hear Therefore,  let  all  the 

house  of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made 
that  same  Jesus  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ."t  So  St.  Paul :  "  God  hath  highly  exalted  him 
(Jesus)  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name.  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and 
things  under  the  earth.  And  that  every  tongue  should 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father.":j:  What  could  be  plainer,  than  that  in  his 
exaltation  all  his  power  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  held  in 
subordination  to  the  glory  of  the  Father  ? 

3.  Li  one  great  province  of  his  power,  as  Judge  of 
the  world,  his  authority  and  power  are  still  conferred. 
"  The  Father  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the 

*  Luke  22 :  29. 

f  Acts  2  :  32,  83,  36  ;  vid.  also  3  :  13  ;  5  :  31 ;  1  Pet.  1:21;  Ephea. 
1 :  19-22  ;  Rev.  2  :  26,  27. 
X  Philip.  2  :  9-11. 


SUBOEDINATION    OP   THE    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  83 

Son The  Father  hath  given  him  authority 

to  execute  judgment."^  St.  Peter  declares  it  as  the  ex- 
press commission  of  himself  and  his  fellow-apostles, 
"  to  testify  that  it  is  he  (Jesus)  which  was  ordained  of 
God  to  be  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead."f  This  were 
enough.  But  there  is  a  passage  too  remarkable  to  be 
here  omitted.  It  occurs  in  St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  ;J  it  forms  a  part  of  the  Scripture 
selections  in  the  office  for  the  Burial  of  the  Dead  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  Episcopal  Church  ;  it 
probably  forms  part  of  the  Burial  Service  as  conducted 
by  most  Protestant  ministers.  I  wonder  that  any  Trini- 
tarian can  ever  read  it,  or  hear  it  read,  and  not  feel, 
despite  his  hypothesis  of  the  Double  Nature  of  which 
I  shall  have  more  to  say  in  a  subsequent  Lecture,  how 
strikingly  distinct  is  the  Apostle's  language  in  its  ex- 
pression of  the  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father- 
"  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  (Christ)  shall  have 
delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father ; 
when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and  authority 
and  power.  For  he  must  reign  till  He  (i.  e.  God) 
hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  (i.  e.  Christ's)  feet. 
The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  Deatla.  For, 
He  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet.  But,  when  it  is 
said  all  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  He 
is  excepted  which  did  put  all  things  under  him.  And 
when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall 
the  Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  Him  that  put  all 

*  John  5  :  22,  27.  But  read  the  whole  remarkable  testimony  to  the 
general  subject  of  this  Lecture,  contained  in  this  entire  passage  from 
the  nineteenth  to  the  thirty-seventh  verse  inclusive. 

f  Acts  11  :42.  t  15  :  24-28. 


84  SUBOEDINATION    OF   THE   LOED   JESUS   CHKIST. 

things  -ander  hiro,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  In  the 
grand  consummation  of  Christ's  mission  and  office,  he 
is  to  ''  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Fa- 
ther." God  (note  v.  27)  is  to  put  "  all  things"  under 
Christ's  feet,  except  Himself ;  for  the  Supremacy  is  to 
remain  with  Him.  This  exception  is  manifest  or  ob- 
vious, because  his  own  peculiar,  underived  "  glory"  He 
"will  not  give  to  another,"  not  even  to  His  dear  Son.* 
And  when  "all  things"  are  thus  "put  under"  him  by 
God,  the  Son  is  still  to  be  "subject"  as  he  always  Avas, 
to  the  Supreme  and  exhaustless  Source  of  all  his  power ; 
to  the  God  that  raised  him  up,  commissioned  and  sent 
him  into  the  world,  and  who  has  now  exalted  him  to 
be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour.f 

*  Isa.  42  :  8 ;  48  :  11.  f  Acta  5 :  31. 


LECTUEE    lY. 

INFERIOKITY  AND  SUBORDINATION  OF  CHRIST. 
CONTINUED. 

In  continuing  the  argument  for  the  Inferiority  and 
Subordination  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  I 
shall  not  overlook  the  fact,  that  to  the  force  of  all  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament  on  which  I  ha^"e  al- 
ready commented,  as  distinctly  teaching  that  fact,  it  is 
objected  that,  nevertheless,  he  is  called,  nay,  calls  him- 
self, God,  in  the  same  sacred  writings.  But  in  passing, 
let  me  remind  you  that  could  Christ  be  proved  to  be 
truly  God,  the  Trinity  at  any  rate  is  not  thereby  proved, 
however  many  write,  and  speak,  and  preach,  as  though 
it  were.  The  most  in  that  case  which  could  be  made 
to  follow,  would  be  a  Duality  in  the  Godhead.  Still, 
admitting  that  Christ  is  called,  or  calls  himself,  God,  in 
the  New  Testament,  the  question  arises,  in  what  sense  ? 
Is  it  really  in  the  sense  of  the  Supreme,  or  of  His  Mes- 
senger and  Eepresentative  ? 

The  first  proof,  and  one  perhaps  among  those  most 
frequently  cited  from  the  New  Testament  Scriptures, 
of  the  proper  and  Supreme  Deity  of  our  Saviour,  is 
his  own  declaration :  "I  and  my  Father  are  one."* 
But  how  did  he  explain  this  declaration  himself?   Did 

*  Johu  10:  30. 


86         INFERIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION    OF   CHRIST. 

he  permit  such  an  interpretation  of  his  words  by  those 
whom  he  addressed,  as  is  alleged  ?  On  the  utterance 
of  these  words  the  Jews,  who,  I  grant,  seem  to  have 
understood  him  as  meaning  in  the  most  literal  sense 
that  he  was  God,  prepared  at  once  to  stone  him  as  a 
blasphemer ;  and  no  wonder.  But  did  our  Lord  ad- 
mit the  charge?  Mark  the  words  with  which  he 
checked  their  mistaken  purpose  :  "  Is  it  not  written  in 
your  law,"  (a  common  way  among  the  Jews  of  desig- 
nating their  Scripture,)  "  '  I  said,  ye  are  Gods '  ?  If 
he  called  them  Gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God 
came,"  (i.  e.  who  were  the  authorized,  specially  com- 
missioned, inspired  messengers  of  God's  will,  e.  g. 
Moses,  the  Judges,  Angels,  etc.,  as  we  have  before 
seen) — "  and  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken ;  say  ye 
of  him,  whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified,  and  sent  into 
the  world,  Thou  blasphemest  I  because  I  said  " — what  ? 
that  I  am  God,  your  Jehovah  ?  By  no  means ;  but 
"because  I  said  I  am  the  Son  of  God?  If  I  do 
not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.  But  if 
I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works ; 
that  ye  may  know,  and  believe,  that  the  Father  is  in 
me,  and  I  in  him."'^ 

All,  then,  that  he  admitted  v/as,  that  he  had  declared 
himself  to  be  "  the  Son  of  God ";  this  being,  as  he 
must  have  meant,  equivalent  to  his  first  declaration : 
"  I  and  my  Father  are  one."  The  oneness  with  the 
Father  which  he  claimed  to  possess,  was  not,  then,  a 
oneness  of  essence,  but  a  oneness  of  purpose,  consent, 
will,  affection ;  such  a  oneness  as  might  be  supposed 

*  John  10:  30-38. 


INTEEIOBITY  AND   SUBORDINATION    OF   CUEIST.         87 

to  exist  between  an  affectionate  and  good  parent  and  a 
dutiful,  loving,  devoted  cliild ;  such  a  oneness,  indeed, 
as  in  his  remarkable  prayer  before  the  crucifixion,  at- 
testing again  its  subsistence  between  his  Father  and 
himself,  he  prays  may  also  subsist  among  his  chosen 
disciples,  nay,  among  "  them  who  should  believe  on  him 
through  their  word  "  or  preaching ;  "  that  they  all,"  he 
says,  "  may  be  one  ;  as  Thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I 
in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us.""^  St.  Paul 
spoke  of  Apollos  and  himself  as  One,  in  the  same 
sense  ;f  such  phraseology  is  very  common  in  Scrip- 
ture. 

But  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the  proper 
Deity  of  our  Lord,  often  insist  that  the  title,  "  Son  of 
God,"  proves  it.  The  title,  ^^Son  of  God,^^  is  given  to 
Christ  some  fifty  times,  and  "  the  Son^^''  some  forty  times, 
in  the  New  Testament.  How  strange  that  either 
should  be  thought  to  prove  so  stupendous  a  doctrine, 
as  that  he  is  the  Supreme  God !  The  term  Son^  cer- 
tainly in  every  other  case  that  can  be  named,  implies 
distinction  from,  subordination  to,  another,  a  Parent ; 
why  not  here  ?  Is  it  urged  that,  at  any  rate,  it  shows 
his  Divine  nature?  In  general  terms  that  may  be 
granted ;  but  not  that  he  is  the  same  person  or  being — 
not  surely  the  Supreme  God.  Angels,  Israelites,  Solo- 
mon, Christians,  repeatedly  are  all  called  sons  of  God  in 
the  Old  and  Kew  Testaments.ij:  Applied  to  Christ,  it 
is  an  eminently  glorious  title,  expressive  of  God's  spe- 

*  John  17.  t  1  Cor.  3  :  6,  8. 

:{:  Job  1  :  6 ;  38  :  7  ;  Hosea  1:10;  2  Sam.  7  :  14 ;  Rom.  8  :  14 
1  John  3:1;  Gal.  4:4-7;  John  3:12. 


88         INPERIORITY  AND   SUBOEDINATION   OF   CHRIST. 

cial  love,  approval,  etc.,  and  of  liis  own  intimate  con- 
nection with  Grod — ^yet  not  less  of  his  personal  depend- 
ence and  consequent  subordination  and  inferiority. 
Sixty-six  times  God  is  expressly  called  his  Father ; 
repeatedly,  his  Grod;  interchangeably  and  equally,  ^^his 
God  and  our  God,  his  Father  and  our  Father."  Even 
after  his  Kesurrection,  he  said  to  Mary:  "Go  to  my 
brethren,  and  say  unto  them,  I  ascend  unto  my  Father 
and  your  Father;  and  to  my  God  and  your  God."* 
What  must  she,  what  must  they,  have  understood  by 
such  a  plain  and  distinct  declaration  ?  What  reason 
did  he  ever  afterwards,  did  he  ever  before,  give  them 
for  interpreting  it  otherwise  than  according  to  its  sim- 
ple, obvious  meaning  ? 

Again :  we  are  referred  to  the  words  of  Thomas, 
after  the  Kesurrection,  who,  on  being  convinced  of 
that  stupendous  fact  by  our  Lord's  offering  him  the 
very  evidence  he  demanded,  exclaimed :  "  My  Lord  and 
my  God  I"f  But  if  Thomas  did  thus  really  acknow- 
ledge his  Master  to  be  God,  I  should  still  insist  that  it 
was  only  in  the  sense  of  one  "  to  whom  the  word  of 
God  came."  Thomas,  as  a  devout  Jew,  well  knew 
that  "  no  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time" ;  his  Master 
he  had  seen  frequently,  times  without  number.  Our 
Lord  had  said  to  the  woman  of  Samaria,  "God  is  a 
Spirit"  ;  and  in  perfect  correspondence  with  that  decla- 
ration, when  he  perceived  the  fright  into  which  his 
disciples  were  thrown  at  his  first  appearance  among 
them  when  "gathered  together,"  he  said:  "A  spirit 
hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have."+     Surely 

*  John  20  :  17.  f  John  20  :  28.  %  Luke  24  :  39. 


INFERIORITY  AND    SUBORDINATION    OP   CHRIST.  89 

it  is  notliing  but  absurd  to  suppose  that  Tliomas  be- 
lieved tlie  being  before  liim,  who  gave  to  him  sensible 
demonstration  that  he  had  "  jflesh  and  bones,"  was  the 
Invisible  God,  as  the  sacred  writers  so  often  style  the 
Almighty.*  Under  the  circtimstances,  the  words 
seem  to  me  only  a  perfectly  natural  expression  of  sud- 
den and  intense  surprise  and  astonishment — ^the  lan- 
guage of  strong  emotion  on  the  part  of  Thomas.  Of 
what  was  the  disciple  incredulous  ?  Simply  of  the 
fact  of  his  Lord's  being  alive  again,  the  fact  of  his 
Eesurrection.  At  what  was  he  surprised  ?  That  there 
was  given  him  the  identical  evidence,  without  which 
he  had  declared  he  would  not  believe  that  the  others 
had  "seen  the  Lord" — that  he  was  alive  again — that 
he  had  come  forth  from  the  dead.  "A  spirit " — an 
apparition — a  phantasm  that  "  had  not  flesh  and  bones" 
— they  might  have  seen  ;  but  not  Jesus,  their  beloved 
Master ;  not  him,  again  in  the  flesh.  That  was  the  point 
to  be  proved,  and  nothing  else,  nothing  more.  ISTo- 
thing  as  to  his  nature,  rank  in  creation,  or  indeed,  what 
or  who  he  was.  But  simply  and  only  the  actuality  of 
the  Lord's  Resurrection,  his  personal  identity  with  the 
crucified  and  buried  Christ.  What  wonder  at  the  as- 
tonishment or  even  awe  which  filled  Thomas,  when  the 
proof  he  needed  and  asked  was  vouchsafed,  and  he  felt 
that  his  revered,  beloved,  divine  Master,  stood  before 
him !  What  wonder  that  he,  an  Oriental — "  according 
to  the  invariable  habit  of  the  Jews,  Arabs,  and  almost 
all  other  Asiatic  nations,  who,  when  struck  with  won- 
der,  often  make   exclamations  in   the  name  of  the 

*  Col.  1 :  15  ;  1  Tim.  1 :  17;  Heb.  11 :  2Y. 


90         INFEKIOEITY  AND   SUBOKDINATION    OF   CHEIST. 

Deity"*— thus  surprised  and  struck  with  this  marvel- 
lous, this  astounding  fact,  should  have  exclaimed  in 
the  fulness  of  his  emotion,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God  !" 
The  language  of  mere  confession — when  he  would  have 
said,  ^^Thou  art  my  Lord;  thou  art  my  Grod" — was  too 
cold  for  the  state  of  mind  in  which  Thomas  was.  Our 
Lord  understood  that  state  of  mind  in  his  incredulous 
follower,  and  his  response  to  the  exclamation  shows  it : 
"  Because  thou  hast  seen^'' — because  thou  hast  seen  that 
it  is  a  being  having  flesh  and  bones — "  thou  hast  be- 
lieved "  that  it  is  really  I,  risen  from  the  dead,  and  not 
a  mere  apparition ;  "  blessed  are  they  that  have  not 
seen  and  yet  believed  !" 

There  is  a  very  acute  remark  of  Prof.  Norton,  well 
worthy  of  attention  in  this  connection.  "  Supposing 
that  Thomas  had  believed,  and  asserted  that  his  Mas- 
ter was  God  Himself;  in  what  way  should  this  affect 
our  faith  ?  We  should  still  know  the  fact  on  which 
his  belief  was  founded,  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection  of 
his  Master,  and  could  draw  our  own  inferences  from  it, 
and  judge  whether  his  were  well-founded.  Consider- 
ing  into  how  great  an  error  he  had  fallen  in  his  pre- 
vious obstinate  incredulity,  there  would  be  but  little 
reason  for  relying  upon  his  opinion  as  infallible  in  the 
case  supposed.  I  make  this  remark,  not  from  any 
doubt  about  the  meaning  of  his  words,  but,  as  I  have 
said,  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  one  example  of 
that  incomplete  and  unsatisfactory  mode  of  reasoning, 
which  appears  in  the  use  of  many  quotations  from  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testaments."! 

*  Ram  Mohun  Roy's  Final  Appeal,  p.  282. 

\  Norton's  Statement  of  Reasons,  2d  ed.  pp.  302,  303. 


IXFEKIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OF   CHRIST.         91 

"Well  may  we  say,  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Salme- 
ron,  that  "Christ  did  not  receive  testimony  from  the 
Evangelists^  that  he  was  God.""^  The  Gospels,  of  which 
they  were  the  writers,  give  no  such  testimony.  In 
making  this  assertion,  we  have  more  than  Roman 
Catholic  admissions,  however,  to  sustain  us.  Protest- 
ant Trinitarian  divines  have  repeatedly  made  the  same. 
Many,  with  Dr.  Longley,  Bishop  of  Ripon,  have  been 
forced  to  account  in  the  best  way  they  could,  for  the 
obvious  and  remarkable  silence  or  reserve  of  the  Evan- 
gelists, on  so  fundamental  a  point  of  Christian  faith  as 
they  affirm  this  to  be ;  and  like  him  have  held  that 
before  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  Pentecost,  they 
were  designedly  kept  in  ignorance  of  it  by  our  Lord 
himself,  as  not  being  till  then  "  able  to  bear"  so  start- 
ling a  disclosure.f  To  such  shifts  are  the  advocates 
of  the  Supreme  Deity  of  Christ  driven,  by  the  difficulty 
of  reconciling  it  with  the  whole  tenor  and  drift  of  the 
Gospel  histories.  But  what  if  it  were  so  ?  What  if 
they  did  not  know  that  their  Master  was  God,  till 
they  had  shared  the  special  illumination  of  Pentecost, 
or  that  which  immediately  followed  ?  They  assuredly, 
according  to  all  critical  authority,  did  not  write  their 
Gospels  till  long  after  this.  The  earliest  date  assigned 
to  either  of  the  Greek  Gospels  is  a.d.  60.  Is  the  mar- 
vel of  the  absence  of  the  least  hint  or  trace  of  any  such 
doctrine,  or  of  their  singular  reserve  upon  it,  through- 
out the  four,  materially  lessened  by  the  supposition 
referred  to  ?     TJiey  knew  it  all  the  while.     To  them  it 

*  Comm.  in  Evang.  torn.  i.  p.  394. 

f  Yid.  the  Bishop's  "Brothers'  Controversy,"  pp.  54  et  seq.  ^j 


92         INTEEIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OP   CHRIST. 

must  liave  been,  whenever  communicated,  most  amaz- 
ing, that  he  with  whom  they  represent  themselves  to 
have  made  so  free  —  conversing  unembarrassed  with 
him,  catechising  him,  contradicting  him,  rebuking 
him,  and  finally  deserting  and  denying  him  when  ar- 
rested, put  through  a  mock  trial,  condemned,  and  cru- 
cified, was,  nevertheless,  their  GOD !  Yes,  all  the 
while  they  were  writing  their  memoirs  of  him,  they 
knew  this,  and  yet,  without  one  word  of  comment,  re- 
cord his  words:  "I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing" 
— "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I " — "  I  came  not  to  do 
mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me " ! 
On  far  less  important  points  they  thought  it  worth 
while  to  throw  in  a  word  of  explanation  ;*  but  on  this, 
not  one.  Is  it  credible,  that  with  their  minds  possessed 
of  this  grand,  yet  overwhelming  idea  of  their  Master, 
nay,  knowing  verily,  beyond  question,  by  direct  reve- 
lation, that  he  was  God,  they  could  thus  calmly,  with 
no  emotions  of  awe  which  we  can  discover,  write  out 
their  several  accounts  of  him  in  such  a  way,  that  had 
these  Gospels  perished,  and  no  other  books  been  writ- 
ten by  his  followers,  the  world  would  have  been  in  the 
dark  to  this  hour  on  this  momentous  subject?  l^ay, 
more;  take  the  case  of  John  the  Beloved,  the  last 
of  the  Evangelists,  who  wrote  his  Gospel  in  his  old 
age.  Is  it  credible  that  he,  near  the  close  of  that  Gos- 
pel, knowing  at  that  moment  as  is  generally  under- 
stood, all  that  the  other  three  gospels  contained  or 
-  omitted,  and  having  brought  his  own  narrative  down 
(Ao  the  Eesurrection  of  his  Master — ^knowing  at  the 

*  *  E.  g.  John  12:  33;  21  :  19. 


INFERIORITY  A:N'D    SUBORDIXATIOX    OF   CHRIST.         93 

same  time  that  tliat  Master  was  God,  very  and  Su- 
joreme  Ghod — should  nevertheless  have  thus  summed 
up,  and  declared  the  great  and  special  purpose  of  his 
work?  ''These  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe 
that  Jesus  is"  —  what,  or  who,  I  ask?  Grod?  Ko — 
nothing  like  it.  A  clear,  broad  line  of  separation  is 
preserved,  perfectly  corresponding  to  all  that  he  and 
the  other  Evangelists  had  before  recorded,  perfectly  in 
accordance  with  the  whole  tenor  and  drift  of  the  entire 
New  Testament.  "  These  are  written,  that  ye  might 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  GOD  ;  and 
that,  believing,  ye  might  have  Life  through  his  name." 
Even  Dr.  J.  Pye  Smith  says :*  "It  is  plain  that  the 
immediate  object,  in  the  writings  of  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke,  was  to  produce  a  conviction  that  Jesus  of 
ISTazareth  was  the  Messiah  announced  and  described  in 
the  prophetic  writings."  Yes,  and  the  same  was  John's, 
as  the  passage  just  quoted  from  his  Gospel  shows.  He 
had  written  all  he  had  written  there ;  all,  including 
every  text  and  passage  ever  since  cited  to  prove  either 
a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead  or  the  Godhead 
of  Christ — he  had  written  it  all  to  convince  his  read- 
ers, to  make  them  "  believe"  just  this  one  great,  fun- 
damental truth,  namely,  "that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,"  L  e. 
the  Messiah,  the  two  terms  meaning  precisely  the 
same ;  the  latter  from  the  Hebrew,  the  former  from 
the  Greek :  that  he  is  "  the  Son  of  God"  and  not  God 
Himself.  Nay,  more ;  to  show  that  this  was  the  essen- 
tial tiling^  to  be  believed,  he  adds  :  "And  that  belie v- 
ing,  ye  might  have  Life  through  his  name."t     "  Life" 

*  Scrip.  Test,  to  the  Messiah,  vol  il.  p.  412.  f  John  20:  31. 


94         INFEEIOEITY  AND   SUBOEDINATION    OP   CHBIST. 

here  includes  all,  in  tlie  liigliest  sense,  wtiich  onr  Lord 
promises  to  his  faithful  followers ;  and  all  the  know- 
ledge of  his  Master  necessary  to  secure  to  ns  that,  John 
has  unfolded  in  his  precious  pages.  It  is,  I  repeat, 
"  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 

But  there  is  an  equal  silence  and  reserve  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  which  book  tells  us  of  the  wonderful 
doings  at  Pentecost ;  and  in  the  several  Epistles  and 
the  Eevelation.  The  dates  assigned  to  all  these  books 
are  long  after  Pentecost,  although  some  of  the  Paul- 
ine Epistles  are  earlier  by  a  few  years  than  the  Gos- 
pels ;  and  still  not  a  trace  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ  is 
in  any  of  them.  I  do  not  say  that  they  furnish  those 
who  differ  from  us  no  alleged  proofs  of  the  doctrine, 
for  these  alleged  ]3roofs  are  what  we  are  now  to  sift. 
To  them  let  us  proceed. 

In  the  Acts"^  we  read  of  "the  church  of  God  which 
he  hath  purchased  by  his  own  blood."  I  might  re- 
mark upon  the  strangeness  of  such  language,  having 
no  parallel  to  it  throughout  the  Scriptures,  and  at  first 
sight,  and  even  the  more  we  reflect  on  and  analyse  it, 
shocking  to  every  unsophisticated  mind.  The  "  blood" 
of  God !  But  we  need  not  spend  much  time  about  it, 
for  Griesbach,  after  most  careful  examination  of  man- 
uscripts, Wetstein,  Le  Clerc,  and  Grotius,  all  read 
"  church  of  the  Lord."  Adam  Clark,  in  his  notes  on 
the  passage,  though  admitting  this  reading  to  have 
"the  greater  evidence,"  thinks  it  necessary  to  add, 
"  We  must  maintain  that,  had  not  this  Lord  been  God, 
his  blood  could  have  been  no  purchase  for  the  souls  of 
a  lost  world" ;  so,  according  to  him,  it  might  as  well 

*  20  :  28, 


INFERIORITY  AND    SUBORDINATION    OP   CHRIST.  95 

read,  after  all,  as  in  our  English  version.  But  Kui- 
noel,  Bishop  Middleton,  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith,  Bishop  Marsh, 
and  Olshausen,  (whose  great  Commentary  has  been 
recently  translated  by  Dr.  Kenrick,  of  Kochester  Uni- 
versity,) are  explicit  in  favor  of  Griesbach's  reading ; 
"  which,"  says  Olshausen,  "  «ZZ  recent  critics  recognize 
as  the  right  one."*  Prof.  Stuart,  and  Dr.  Barnes  of 
Philadelphia,  are  of  the  same  mind ;  and  nothing  more 
need  be  said  of  a  text,  which  is  thus  relieved  of  all 
difficulty,  and  furnishes  not  a  shadow  of  support  to  the 
doctrine  I  am  controverting. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans,f  we  read :  "  Christ 
.  .  .  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever.  Amen." 
But  look  at  the  passage.  He  is  recounting  the  distinct- 
ive and  glorious  privileges  of  the  Jews ;  and,  in  the 
third  verse,  so  profound  is  his  interest  and  anxiety  for 
their  salvation,  that  he  almost  wishes  himself  "ac- 
cursed," or,  as  the  margin  reads,  "  separated  from" 
Christ,  for  their  sake.  What  is  his  object?  To  vin- 
dicate the  call  of  the  Gentiles  into,  and  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews  as  such,  from  the  Christian  Church. 
Throughout  the  Epistle  he  seeks  to  meet  and  neutral- 
ize Jewish  prejudices,  and  the  opposition  of  his  "breth- 
ren," his  "kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,"  to  the  new 
faith.  Would  he  have  been  so  infatuated  as  the  Trini- 
tarian construction  of  this  text  would  make  him? 
When  he  knew  how  tenaciously,  not  to  say  bigotedly, 
the  nation  clung  to  the  Unity  of  God,  would  he,  hav- 
ing in  mind  the  obvious  pupose  stated  above,  have 
riveted  at  the  start  all  their  prejudices,  and  confirmed 

*  Kenrick's  Olshausen,  vol.  iii.  384.  f  9 :  5. 


96         INTEKIOEITY  AND   SUBOEDINATION   OF   CHRIST. 

all  their  oppositioD,  by  asserting  that  that  Jesus  whom 
they  had  crucified  as  a  malefactor,  was  nevertheless 
that  God  Himself?  Besides,  how  abruptly,  without 
cause  or  connection,  is  such  a  tremendous  statement  as 
is  supposed,  here  introduced !  No  use  appears  for  it, 
or  is  made  of  it  by  St.  Paul.  Nowhere  else  does  he, 
or- any  of  the  sacred  writers,  call  Christ  "  God  over  all, 
blessed  forever."  Directly  the  contrary,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  and  shall  see  again.  Eemember,  more- 
over, that  the  punctuation  of  the  text  is  a  modern  and 
purely  arbitrary  matter.  Every  scholar  knows  that  it 
must  depend  on  what  the  reader  understands  this  or 
indeed  any  passage  to  mean ;  for  the  Apostolic  auto- 
graphs were  probably  without  any  punctuation,  as  are 
the  most  ancient  manuscripts.  Accordingly,  we  find 
critics  and  versions  differ,  and  often  widely,  in  their 
pointing  of  this  and  of  other  texts.  Lachmann,  Tis- 
chendorf,  Riickert,  and  a  host  of  the  ablest  critics,  put 
a  period  after  the  word  flesh,  and  read:  "Of  whom 
Christ  came,  according  to  the  flesh.  He,  who  is  above 
all  God,  be  blessed  forever!"  or,  "God,  who  is  above 
all,  be  blessed  forever  !"  Erasmus,  without  positively 
adopting  it,  declares  that  this  punctuation  "  is  perfectly 
suitable  to  the  purport  of  the  discourse."  It  is  also 
remarkable,  that  though  the  ancient  Greek  manuscripts 
are  in  general  without  punctuation  marks,  the  cele- 
brated Codex  Uphraemi,  one  of  the  most  authoritative 
among  them,  has  actually,  as  above,  a  period  after  the 
w^ord  "flesh."  With  this  construction,  the  clause  un- 
der consideration  becomes  a  Doxology,  or  ascription  of 
praise  to  God  for  the  coming  of  His  Christ  or  Messiah, 
in   the   prophetic   line  of   "the  covenants   .    .    .   the 


INFERIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION    OF   CHRIST.         97 

promises  .  .  .  the  fathers;"  His  preeminent  gift.  As 
sucli,  it  must  be  presumed,  according  to  the  uniform 
style  and  custom  of  St.  Paul,*  to  have  been  addressed 
to  the  Father  as  "  God  above  all,"  and  not  to  Christ. 

Besides,  the  Apostle  had  just  before  (v.  3)  spoken 
of  himself  in  reference  to  his  human  lineage,  in  the 
exact  phrase  in  which  he  now  speaks  of  Christ — •"  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh" — referring  to  his  own  earthly  de- 
scent. Would  he  immediately,  on  the  instant,  have 
declared  him,  nevertheless,  with  no  explanation,  with 
no  connecting  clause,  and  for  no  conceivable  purpose, 
to  be  the  self-existing.  Supreme  God?  Would  this, 
I  again  ask,  have  been  in  the  least  likely  to  conciliate 
the  Jews  ?  l^o,  no.  Depend  upon  it  Paul  was  too 
sagacious,  too  acute,  too  logical,  at  the  outset  of  his 
argument  to  proclaim,  even  if  in  the  sequel  he  meant 
to  prove,  that  the  Crucified  was  their  GOD. 

And  the  History  of  the  Church  sustains  our  interpre- 
tation of  the  text.  For  why,  during  that  whole  Arian 
controversy  which  raged  so  fiercely  and  lasted  so  long, 
was  this  text  never  once  quoted  against  the  Arians,  if 
it  so  clearly  attested  the  Supreme  Deity  of  Christ  ? 
"Those,"  said  Erasmus,  "who  contend  that  in  this 
text  Christ  is  clearly  called  God,  either  place  little  con- 
fidence in  other  passages  of  Scripture — deny  all  under- 
standing to  the  Arians — or  pay  scarcely  any  attention 
to  the  style  of  the  Apostle.  A  similar  passage  occurs 
in  2  Cor.  11 :  31 :  '  The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  blessed  for  ever ;'  the  latter  clause 
being  undeniably  restricted  to  the  Father,  "f 

*  Yid.  Rom.  1  :  23  ;  2  Cor.  1  :  3 ;  id.  11 :  31 ;   Eph.  1 :  3. 
I  Erasmus  Annot.  in  op.  torn.  vi.  p.  611. 

5 


98         INFERIOEITY  AND   SUBOEDINATION   OF   CHEIST. 

I  pass  now  to  another  passage,  from  St.  Paul's  first 
Epistle  to  Timothy  ;^  where,  it  is  alleged,  that  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  Christ  as  "  Grod  ....  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh."  I  might  occujoy  much  time  in  cita- 
tions from  various  critics  upon  the  true  reading  of  this 
passage  in  the  Greek.  Suffice  to  say  that  many,  very 
many  of  the  most  repute  reject  the  word  answering  to 
God,  and  substitute  the  pronoun  answering  to  "who" 
or  "he  who";  Griesbach,  Wetstein,  Lachmann,  De 
"Wette,  do  this.  Bishop  Marsh  says  that  "this  reading 
(God)  is  found  a  prima  manuf  in  not  a  single  ancient 
manuscript  in  uncial  letters,  (or  capitals— the  highest 
class  of  Mss.)  nor  in  a  single  ancient  version,  except 
the  Arabic,  which  is  of  very  little  authority."  Prof. 
Stuart,  of  our  own  country,  who  holds  to  the  reading 
of  our  English  version,  nevertheless  says,  that  an  at- 
tentive student  of  Scripture,  "  will  see  that  God  might 
be  manifest  in  the  person  of  Christ,  without  the  neces- 
sary implication  of  the  proper  divinity  (Deity)  of  the 
Saviour. "if  Here  I  leave  the  critics.  I  take  the  com- 
mon reading.  The  Unitarian  gladly  believes  that  God 
did  manifest  himself  in  Christ  preeminently.  He  can 
as  consistently  and  sincerely  speak  of  Christ  as  "  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh,"  as  any  other  Christian  of  any 
other  name.  Yes,  I  accept  the  statement  to  the  full. 
I  rejoice  and  bless  God  who  has  been  pleased  thus 
gloriously  and  graciously  to  manifest  Himself  in  the 
person  of  His  beloved  Son  our  Lord.  In  him  God 
comes  near  to  man.      His  power  and  wisdom,   his 

*  1  Tim.  3  :  16. 

f  At  first  hand,  i.  e.  in  the  original  transcript. 

X  He  refers  to  John  17  :  20-26  ;  1  John  1 :  3 ;  2  :  o  ;  4  :  15,  16. 


INFEKIOKITY  AND   SUBOEDINATION   OF   CHRIST.         99 

"  grace  and  truth,"  what  were  they  all  but  God's  ?  So 
high  do  I  place  him  in  my  devout  contemplation  and 
faith,  that  what  he  taught,  commanded,  threatened,  or 
promised,  has  with  me  all  the  weight  and  authority 
which  could  belong  to  the  same  words  were  they  audi- 
bly addressed  to  me  by  God  himself  from  the  opened 
heavens.  He  is  simply  Inferior  and  Subordinate  to 
God,  because,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  the  Su- 
preme can  have  no  Equal. 


LECTUEE     Y. 

INFERIORITY  AKD    SUBORDLN-ATION    OF  CHRIST. 
COKCLUDED. 

There  remain  some  otlier  passages  of  tlie  New  Tes- 
tament Scripture  to  be  examined  before  leaving  the 
topic  of  tlie  Inferiority  and  Subordination  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews*  we  read, 
''  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for 
ever  and  ever ;"  and  therefore  it  is  alleged  that  this 
proves  the  proper  Deity  of  the  Son.  One  would  think 
it  were  only  necessary  to  read  the  context  to  see  that 
it  proves  no  such  thing,  but  only  that  the  Son  is  ad- 
dressed as  God  in  the  lower  sense  in  which  they  were 
so  addressed  "  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came."  Mark 
the  language.     "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and 

ever Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and 

hated  iniquity  ;  therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows P 
Whatever  rank  or  office  the  title  God^  in  the  first  in- 
stance, implied,  it  was  plainly  subordinate  to  that  of 
the  Supreme.  He  to  whom  it  is  applied  has  himself  a 
Superior,  nay,  a  God — which  could  not  be  said  of  the 
Supreme ;  is  rewarded  for  his  fidelity,  his  love  of 
righteousness  —  being  '-^therefore  anointed,"  etc.  —  (but 


*  1 


INFERIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OP   CHRIST.      101 

wlio  could  "reward"  tlie  Supreme?);  has  "fellows," 
equals — which  it  were  simply  absurd  to  predicate  of 
the  Supreme.  The  passage  is  a  quotation  from  one  of 
the  Messianic  Psalms,  or  those  which  the  Jews  believed 
to  be  prophetic  of  their  king  Messiah  ;*  and  nothing  i^ 
more  beyond  dispute  than  that  the  Jews  expected  in 
their  Messiah,  although  a  King,  a  mighty  leader,  de- 
liverer, conqueror ;  still,  only  "  a  man  born  of  hu- 
man parents  ;"t  with  which  ideas,  assuredly,  the  entire 
passage  is  simply  consistent. 

When  we  turn  to  the  critics,  even  prominent  Trini- 
tarian critics,  our  view  of  the  passage  is  confirmed. 
Grotius,  and  many  others  before  and  since  the  time 
of  Griesbach,  read  the  passage  conformably  to  the 
text  of  the  latter,  "God  is  thy  throne"  in  the  first 
clause.  So  Calvin,  so  Nosselt.  Dr.  Mayer,  in  the 
Biblical  Eepository,:]:  says  :  "  Here  the  Son  is  addressed 
by  the  title  God;  but  the  context  shows  that  it  is  an 
official  title,  which  designates  him  as  a  King ;  he  has  a 
kingdom,  a  throne,  a  sceptre;  and  in  verse  9  he  is 
compared  with  other  kings,  who  are  called  his  fellows ; 
but  God  can  have  no  fellows,"  Prof  Stuart,  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle,  says :  "  That  the  whole 
Psalm  relates  to  the  Messiah  as  Mediatorial  King^  can 
scarcely  be  doubted  by  any  one  who  compares  together 
all  its  different  parts."  And  although  he  had,  "  in  a 
former  publication,"  contended  that  the  title  God^  by 
which  he  (the  Son)   is  here  addressed,   denoted  his 

*  Ps.  45  :  6,  1. 

f  Vid.  Just.  Martyr's  "Dial,  cum  Trypho;"  p.  235,  et  alibi,  cited  by 
Prof.  Norton.     "  Reasons,"  etc.  pp.  204-5. 
X  January,  1840,  p.  149. 


102      INFERIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OF  CHRIST. 

"  divine  nature,"  lie  finds  grounds  to  doubt.  In  tlie 
Biblical  Eepositorj,*  however,  bis  doubt  is  resolved, 
for  there  be  says  :  "  As  to  tbe  quotation  from  Ps.  45,  it 
seems  to  me  a  clear  case,  tbat  it  does  not  fairly  establish 
the  truly  divine  nature  of  him  to  whom  it  is  applied." 
I  pass  to  another  passage  in  the  first  Epistle  of  John  :f 
"  We  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath 
given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may  know  Him 
that  is  true :  and  we  are  in  Him  that  is  true,  even  in 
His  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and 
eternal  life.  Little  children,  keep  yourselves  from 
idols."  In  the  first  place,  the  Trinitarian  mistake  upon 
this  passage  is  perpetuated  without  just  reason,  from 
the  introduction  most  improperly  of  the  word  ''  even" 
into  the  text,  there  being  no  word  in  the  original  an- 
swering to  it,  as  is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  italic  type. 
In  the  next  place,  the  chief  difficulty  arises  from  the 
pronoun  rendered  "  This"  often  made  to  refer  to  the 
nearest  antecedent  or  "Jesus  Christ."  But  Grotius 
says :  "  The  pronoun  this  not  unfrequently  relates  to  a 
remote  antecedent,  as  in  Acts  7  :  19,  (where  it  is  ren- 
dered *  the  same';)  id.  10:  6,"  (where  it  is  rendered 
"he":]:;)  and  Yater  :  "There  is  no  reason  why  the 
words  this  is  the  true  God  should  not  be  referred  to  the 
same,  {Him  that  is  true^)  though  grammatically  they  be- 
long to  the  proximate  antecedent  Christy  Both  these 
are  Trinitarian  authorities  ;  *but  I  canjiot  omit  citing 

*  No.  for  July,  1835,  pp.  105,  106.  Comm.  in  Hebr.;  p.  294,  2d  ed.  ;— 
the  whole  note  is  remarkable  for  its  candor. 

f  4 :  20,  21. 

\  Another  example  of  reference  to  the  remote  antecedent  occurs  in 
Act.  4:11;  and  a  very  remarkable  one  in  2d  Ep.  of  John,  ver.  Y. 


IKPERIOEITY  AND   SUBORDINxVTION    OF   CHRIST.      103 

from  another  of  tlie  same  class  more  at  length.  Liicke, 
in  his  comment  on  the  passage,*  says :  "1.  The  em- 
phatic tone  of  the  preposition  renders  it  necessary  to 
refer  '  this'  to  the  prevailing  chief  subject  of  the  pre- 
ceding preposition.  But  this  is  God,  ^Him  that  is  true^ 
and  not  Christ,  who  only  is  mentioned  parenthetically, 
as  he  through  whose  mediation  the  heing  in  Him  that  is 
true  is  effected.  2.  Further,  as  God  above  is  hy  excellence^ 
and  without  any  word  additional,  called  'The  True,' 
(compare  John  17  :  3,f )  and  Christ  never  is  so  styled  by 
St.  John ;  '  this''  can,  according  to  all  rules  of  logical 
interpretation,  not  be  referred  to  Christ,  but  to  God, 
imless  we  are  determined  to  charge  St.  John  with  an 
intentional  confusion  of  ideas.  3.  The  authors  of  the 
ISTew  Testament  never  use  the  same  predicate  and  name 
for  the  Father  and  the  Son  of  God,  when  they  speak 
of  each  distinctly.  Here  it  is  plain  that  they  are  dis- 
tinctly spoken  of  If,  then,  '  this'  here  ought  to  be  re- 
ferred to  Christ,  we  should  have  a  confusion  of  names 
and  predicates,  to  which  there  would  be  no  parallel  in 
the  New  Testament.  Finally,  4.  St.  John  indeed  calls 
the  Logos  of  God  in  Christ,  God,  in  John  1:1;  but  the 
historical  Christ  he  never  does  so  designate,  but  always 
as  Son  of  God,  But  let  us  suppose  that  St.  John  in- 
tended to  designate  Christ  as  the  True  God^  for  what 
reason  does  he  introduce  that  designation  in  this  par- 
ticular place  ?  Are  we  to  suppose  that  without  demon- 
stration, without  preparation  of  any  kind,  nay,  even 

*  Liicke's  Comm.  on  St.   John's  Epistles,  in  h.  1.  Edinburgh  ed. 
f  "This  is  life  eternal,  to  know  Thee,  the  only  True  God,''''  etc. 


104       INFERIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OF   CHRIST. 

contrary  to  tlie  nearest  context,  lie  introdnced  sucli  an 
important,  and  with  him  unnsual  proposition,"  (I  beg 
my  readers  to  note  the  strength  of  these  expressions 
by  a  Trinitarian  writer,)  "  in  such  an  equivocal  form  as 
a  straggler  at  the  end  of  the  epistle — that  he  did  so  in- 
troduce a  proposition,  to  which  nothing  resembling  it 
occurs  in  the  whole  epistle,  and  to  which  no  satisfactory 
clue  is  to  be  found  in  the  Gospel  which  mentions  as 
God  only  the  Logos  or  Word  in  Christ — always  speaks 
of  the  Christ  who  appeared  in  the  flesh  as  Son  of  Ood 
— and  says  of  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ,  John  17:3, 
that  He  is  '  the  Only  True  God'  ?  Never !  And  the 
warning  against  idols,  plain  and  well  grounded  as  it 
appears,  if  Hills'  is  referred  to  God,  how  obscure  and 
unconnected,  nay,  how  confused  must  it  appear  to  the 
reader  when,  besides  God,  Christ  also  is  mentioned  as 
the  True  God  I  These  are  sufiicient  grounds  for  declar- 
ing, that  the  only  right  construction  is  to  refer  '  This  is 
the  True  God'  to  GoD." 

With  such  ample  support  from  men  eminent  in  the 
Trinitarian  ranks,  not  to  cite  from  Erasmus,  Wetstein, 
Michaelis,  Archbishop  N'ewcome,  Neander,  and  many 
others,  to  the  same  effect,  there  can  be  little  difficulty  in 
understanding  the  text.  ISTewcome  says,  in  his  notes 
upon  it  in  his  translation:  ''^ He  that  is  truenmst  be 
different  from  the  person  who  gave  man  an  understand- 
ing to  know  him."  And  he  thus  translates  it — "  that 
we  may  know  Him  that  is  true :  and  we  are  in  Him 
that  is  true,  through  His  Son  Jesus  Christ ;" — ^that  is,  as 
he  says  again — "by  means  of,  by  the  manifestation  of, 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  rendering  occurs  in  our  old 
English  Bibles ;"  and  he  refers  to  the  editions  of  1549, 


INTERIOEITY  AKD   SUBOKDIN^ATION   OF   CHEIST.      105 

'51,  and  '68.  Still  farther,  in  a  note  on  the  last  clause 
of  verse  20,  lie  thus  expounds  it:  "By  Him  that  is 
true,  I  mean  the  true  God,  and  the  Giver  of  ever- 
lasting life."  With  Newcome,  substantially,  agrees 
Prof.  Korton,  who  thus  translates  :  "And  we  are 
assured  that  the  Son  of  God  has  come,  and  has  given 
us  understanding  to  know  Him  who  is  True,  and  we 
are  with  Him  who  is  True,  through  His  Son  Jesus 
Christ.  He  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life.  Child- 
ren, keep  yourselves  from  idols."  He  adds :  "  The 
meaning  is,  that  He  with  whom  Christians  are.  He  who 
is  True,  is  the  True  God,  and  the  Giver  of  Eternal 
Life.  In  the  former  part  of  the  passage,  St.  John  ex- 
presses the  Jewish  conception  of  the  personality  and 
power  of  Satan.  To  him,  the  wicked  one,  he  regarded 
the  heathen  world  as  subject ;  while  believers  were 
through  Christ  with  Him  who  is  True,  the  True  God. 
They  were,  therefore,  to  keep  themselves  from  idols."* 

There  is  another  text  in  this  Epistle :f  "Hereby 
perceive  we  the  love  of  God^  because  he  laid  down  his 
life  for  us."  It  is  enough  to  say  of  this  that  the  words 
"of  God" — italicised,  remember,  by  our  own  trans- 
lators as  not  in  the  Greek,  are  absolutely  rejected  by 
Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Mill,  Bengel,  and  a  host  of  other 
distinguished  critics.  The  reference  is  unquestionably 
to  Christ. 

Then  as  to  the  declaration  of  our  Lord,  recorded  in 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John::]:  "Before  Abraham  was,  I 
am."    Why,  it  may  be  asked  in  the  outset,  why,  ex- 

*  Norton's  Reasons,  etc.  pp.  197-8.  f  1  John  3  :  16. 

X  John  8  :  58. 
5* 


106      INFEEIORITT  AND   SUBOEDINATION   OF  CHKIST. 

cept  for  a  purpose,  have  our  translators  departed  here 
from  their  usual  mode  of  rendering  the  exact  Greek 
word  so  often  used  by  our  Lord  ?  Here  it  reads,  "  I 
am"  ■ —  literally,  and  without  supplement ;  in  other 
places,  "  I  am  /le"  .^*  Why  not  here  as  there — "  I  am 
Ae" — the  Messiah  purposed  in  the  counsels  of  God  long 
before  Abraham  had  being  ?  This  is  the  interpretation 
of  Grotius,  and  I  believe  the  true  one.  Trinitarians 
are  accustomed  to  insist  that  our  Lord  meant  to  declare 
that  he  was  the  ''  I  am"  of  the  Old  Dispensation,  who 
revealed  Himself  to  Moses  by  the  name  or  appellation, 
"  I  am  that  I  am" ;  but  Dr  J.  Pye  Smith  tells  usf  that 
"the  words"  there  "  are  in  the  future  tense,  ' I  will  be 
that  which  I  will  be,'  Exod.  3  :  14 ;  and  most  probably 
it  was  not  intended  as  a  name,  but  as  a  declaration  of  a 
certain  fulfilment  of  all  the  promises  of  God."  While 
Mr.  Carlile  of  the  Scotch  Kirk  says::!:  "I  do  not  mean 
to  rest  any  argument  on  the  expression  /  am,  taken  by 
itself.  It  occurs  repeatedly  in  this  chapter,  and  is 
translated  I  am  Ae." 

If  then  the  use  of  the  word  was  no  assumption,  as 
of  inherent  right  by  our  Lord,  of  the  alleged  name  or 
appellation  of  Jehovah,  the  rendering  of  the  Common 
Version  is  meaningless.  What  our  Lord  meant  was, 
that  before  Abraham  was  born,  God  had  purposed  that 
he  should  be  the  Messiah.  So  to  speak,  in  allusion  to 
the  Divine  purposes,  was  familiar  to  the  Jews.    In  Jer- 

*  Vid.  in  this  same  chapter,  vv.  24,  28  ;  also,  John  4  :  26  ;  13 :  19. 
Compare  also  Matt.  24  :  5  ;  Mark  13  :  6,  and  Luke  21 :  8 ;  also,  John 
3:  28  and  Acts  13:  25. 

f  Scripture  Test.  vol.  ii.  p.  161. 

\.  "Jesus  Christ  the  Great  God  our  Saviour,"  p.  174. 


IlfFERIORITY  AND   SUBOKDINATION   OP   CHRIST.       107 

emiah,*  God  says  to  the  prophet :  "  Before  I  formed 
thee  in  the  womb  I  knew  thee;  before  thou  camest 
forth  at  birth  I  sanctified  thee ;  and  I  ordained  thee  a 
prophet  nnto  the  nations."  Kepeatedlj  in  this  very 
chapter  he  had  used  the  same  phrase,  "  I  am ;"  and  as 
repeatedly  our  translators  render  it,  as  essential  to  the 
sense,  "I  am  Ae,"  that  is,  the  Messiah,  for  whom  the 
Jews  had  been  long  looking.  That  was  what  they,  he 
had  said  must  believe,  or  "die  in  their  sins" ;  that  was, 
as  he  had  just  before  told  them,  what  they  would 
"  know"  when  they  had  "  lifted  him  up" ;  and  that 
was  what  he  now  declared  himself  to  have  been  in  the 
omniscient  counsels  of  God,  long  before  the  era  of  the 
great  Patriarch.f 

Again  we  are  referred  to  the  following  passage  in 
proof  of  the  proper  Deity  of  our  Lord.  "Who,  being 
in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
with  God.":j:  Assuredly  the  Trinitarian  exposition  of 
this  text,  is  a  mere  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  the  Apos- 
tle's argument,  since  it  makes  him  say  that  Christ,  being 
God,  thought  it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  with  himself! 
It  would  indeed  be  absurd  to  say  that  of  any  thinking 
being.  St.  Paul  would  hold  up  to  the  imitation  and 
admiration  of  the  church  at  Philippi,  our  Lord's  ex- 
ample of  humility  and  obedience.  "Be  the  same 
mind  in  you,"  he  says,  "which  was  also  in  Christ  Je- 
sus ;  who,  being  as  God,  inasmuch  ^s  he  was  the  bright- 
est manifestation  of  God,  His  chosen  messenger  and 
Representative,  the  'beloved  Son,'  the  '  only -begotten 
of  the  Father,'  did  not  think  this  glorious  similitude  a 

*  Jer.  1.  f  Verses  24,  28,  58.  %  Philippians  2  :  6, 


108      INFEEIOKITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OP   CHEIST. 

thing  eagerly  to  be  clung  to  or  retained ;  but  rather 
laid  it  aside,  became  a  servant,  assumed  the  condi- 
tion of  a  man ;  and  being  in  that  condition,  humbled 
himself  and  was  obedient  even  unto  death,  the  death 
of  the  cross."  Such  I  take  to  be  the  Apostle's  mean- 
ing, according  to  the  idiom  of  our  own  language.  And 
the  whole  life  and  history  of  our  Lord  well  warrant 
what  he  says.  Speaking  the  words  of  God — wielding 
miraculous  power  by  His  Gift,  and  thus  doing  the 
works  of  God — -possessed  of  Divine  wisdom  and  au- 
thority by  the  will  of  the  Father,  he  did  not  eagerly 
grasp  at  the  grandeur  of  his  high  ofS.ce,  or  hold  or  use 
its  great  powers  for  personal  advantage ;  but  in  the 
condition  of  an  humble  and  faithful  servant,  labored 
on  in  poverty  and  contempt  for  the  good  of  others ; — 
in  that  of  a  man,  though  despised,  rejected,  reviled, 
insulted,  persecuted,  hunted  down  even  to  a  cruel  and 
ignominious  death — yet  through  all  and  to  the  last, 
obedient  and  submissive  to  Him  that  sent  him. 

In  this  view,  what  follows  is  symmetrical  and  har- 
monious. "  Wherefore"  —  because  of  this  humility 
and  obedience — "  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him, 
and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name." 
Mark  you :  Jesus  hath  not  that  name  of  himself,  but 
it  is  the  gift  of  God  ;  how  then  can  he  be  that  God  ? 
"  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow, 
of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things 
under  the  earth ;  and  that  every  tongue  should  con- 
fess that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father."  Had  the  Apostle  intended  to  guard  us 
against  this  very  error,  of  supposing  that  he  meant, 
when  he  said  that  Jesus  was  as  our  version  reads,  "  in 


INFERIORITY  AND    SUBORDINATION    OP   CHRIST.      109 

tlie  form  of  God,"  tliat  lie  was  verilj  God  —  or  that 
when  lie  said  lie  had  received  "  a  name  which  is  above 
every  name,"  he  was  verily  the  Supreme — how  could 
he  have  done  it  better  ?  He  declares  that  his  very 
"  exaltation"  is  a  reward ;  that  his  "  name  above  every 
name''  is  a  gift;  that  the  homage  he  is  to  receive 
from  all  ranks  of  created  beings,  and  the  confession 
which  is  to  be  on  their  lips,  are  to  be  rendered  and 
made  to  him  as  Lord  and  not  as  God,  and  expressly  to 
or  for  "the  glory  of  GOD  the  Father." 

The  highest  Trinitarian  authorities  sustain  our  inter- 
pretation of  this  often  quoted  passage  in  all  particulars. 
For  example,  as  to  the  phrase,  rendered  in  our  Eng- 
lish version,  ''in  the  form  of  God,"  Dr.  Eobinson  in 
his  Lexicon  says  of  it,  "  i.  e.  as  God,  like  God."  As 
to  the  phrase  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God,"  Dr.  Whitby  says,  "  did  not  covet  to  appear  a 
God"  ;  Bishop  Sherlock — "  was  not  fond,  or  tenacious 
of  appearing  as  God"  ;  Prof  Stuart — "  He  regarded  not 
the  being  equal  with  God  as  a  thing  to  be  eagerly 
coveted."     The  last  named  critic  says  :  "  Our  common 

version seems  to  render  nugatory,  or  at  least 

irrelevant,  a  part  of  the  Apostle's  reasoning  in  the  pas- 
sage. He  is  enforcing  the  principle  of  Christian  hu- 
mility upon  the  Philippians  ....  But  how  was  it 
any  proof  or  example  of  humility,  that  he  did  not  thinh 
it  rohhery  to  he  equal  with  God''"'  f^ 

Once  more,  we  are  referred  to  our  Lord's  own  words 
to  Philip :  "He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Fa- 
ther; and  how  sayest  thou,  Show  us  the  Father  ?"t 

*  Answ.  to  Channing,  p.  84.  f  John  14  :  9,  10. 


110      INFERIQKITY  AND    SUBOEDIXATIOX   OF    CHRIST. 

Here,  surely,  is  tlie  highest  possible  and  express  tes- 
timony that  Christ  is  God.  To  this  I  reply  first,  by  a 
flat  denial.  Our  Lord  had  no  reference  to  the  Divine 
Essence,  but  only  to  Divine  excellences  manifested  in 
himself;  to  "  works"  which  he  had  done,  and  which 
no  man  could  do  "  except  God  were  with  him."  Next, 
that  he  explains  his  language  to  Philip,  in  perfect  con- 
sistency with  language  which  he  afterwards  addressed 
to  the  "Father"  as  "the  only  True  God."*  He  proceeded 
to  say  to  Philip :  "  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the 
Father  and  the  Father  in  me  ?  The  words  that  I  speak 
unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  myself;  but  the  Father,  that 
dwelleth  in  me.  He  doeth  the  works."  So  afterwards, 
addressing  the  Father,  he  says :  "As  thou,  Father,  art 
in  me,  and  I  in  thee."f  It  was  his  consciousness  of  the 
indivelling  God,  speaking  in  his  words,  acting  and  ope- 
rating in  his  miraculous  and  merciful  works,  that  war- 
ranted him  in  saying :  "  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath 
seen  the  Father !"  In  a  similar  sense  he  had  previously 
said:  "He  that  seeth  me,  seeth  Him  that  sent  me  !":j: 
Only  in  that  sense  could  Jesus  have  so  uttered  himself; 
for  the  same  Apostle  who  in  his  Gospel  records  these 
declarations,  says  both  in  his  Gospel  and  in  his  first  Epis- 
tle:  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."§  Besides  all 
this,  let  any  one  read  this  entire  fourteenth  chapter  of  St. 
John's  Gospel,  nay,  with  it  the  two  which  follow ;  let  him 
note  how  pointed  is  the  distinction  which  Jesus  makes 
between  the  Father  as  the  source  both  of  his  wisdom 
and  power,  and  himself;!  let  him  note  how  careful  he 

*  John  17  :  3.      \   John  17  :  21.      %   John  12  :  45. 
§  John  1:18;  1  Eph.  4  :  12.  |  Vv.  10,  24,  28. 


IISTERIOEITY  AND   SUBOEDINATION   OF   CHRIST.       Ill 

is  to  forbid  his  disciples  praying  to  himself,  but  directs 
them  to  pray  to  the  Father  in  his  name  ;*  let  him,  then, 
in  immediate  connection,  read  the  seventeenth  chapter, 
containing  our  Lord's  remarkable  prayer  before  his 
betrayal  and  arrest — yes,  prayer  —  the  very  act  and 
office  expressive  of  inferiority  and  dependence;  and 
unless  his  mind  be  wholly-  preoccupied  by  the  influ- 
ences of  Trinitarian  training,  it  would  seem  scarcely  pos- 
sible but  that  he  should  conclude,  that  whatever  Jesus 
meant  when  he  said,  ''  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen 
the  Father,"  he  assuredly  did  not  mean  that  he  was 
''  the  Invisible"  Grod,  "  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate — 
the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  Lords — who  only  hath 
immortality  ;  dwelling  in  the  light  which  no  man  can 
approach  unto ;  whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see." 
Something  else,  something  different  from  that,  he  must 
have  meant ;  and  that  was,  that  in  his  life  and  character, 
his  words  and  works,  they  beheld  Grod  most  conspicu- 
ously and  gloriously  manifested. 

I  come  now  to  a  passage  which  is  perhaps  the  one 
most  readily  cited  against  the  Unitarian  view  of  Christ, 
and  which  demands  the  fuller  notice.  I  refer  to  the 
Proem  or  Introduction  to  St.  John's  Gospel,  f  That 
there  is  in  it  a  degree  of  obscurity  arising  from  our 
want  of  familiarity  with  the  prevalent  opinions  of  the 
time,  may  at  once  be  admitted.  To  rectify  and  guard 
against  the  influence  of  these  opinions,  was  in  part  the 
Apostle's  object.  On  the  one  hand  was  the  Jewish  or 
later  Platonism,  the  leader  of  which  was  the  celebrated 
Philo  Juda3us,  of  Alexandria,  and  a  cotemporary  of  our 

*  16  :  23,  26.  f  ^^^^  1 :  l-^- 


112      INFERIOBITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OF   CHRIST. 

Lord.  On  the  other  was  Gnosticism,  a  heresy  whose 
headquarters  were  at  Ephesus ;  where,  by  the  concur- 
rent testimony  of  antiquity,  the  Apostle  lived  and 
wrote  his  Gospel.  With  the  Gnostic  opinions  which 
prevailed  throughout  the  regions  of  Greece  and  Asia 
Minor,  where  the  new  religion  was  spreading,  the 
Apostle  must,  therefore,  have  been  familiar ;  and 
Irenseus  —  a  pupil  of  Polycarp,  who  was  a  personal 
friend  and  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  who  flourished 
early  in  the  second  century — declares  that  the  Evange- 
list wrote  expressly  to  confate  them.  Between  the 
JSTeo-Platonic  and  Gnostic  systems  there  were  some  co- 
incidences. While  the  former  made  the  Logos — ^the 
Divine  Eeason  or  Intellect,  in  the  passage  before  us 
translated  Word — to  be  the  great  instrument  in  Crea- 
tion, and  gradually  extended  its  significance  to  com- 
prehend all  Divine  attributes  employed  or  manifested 
in  the  Creation  and  Government  of  the  world,  the  lat- 
ter made  it  the  Chief  of  the  CEons,  supposed  immortal 
spirits  holding  and  exercising  different  functions  or 
offi-ces,  themselves  created,  but  still  independent  of  the 
Supreme  God.  To  correct  these  false  notions  was  the 
purpose  of  the  Apostle  ;  by  directing  men's  minds  to 
God  Himself,  as  the  Great  and  Original  Source  of  all 
things,  the  Creator  of  all  beings.  Himself  independent, 
they  all  dependent  on  Him.  In  this  sense  the  Logos — 
"  the  Word"  (the  Wisdom,  Power,  Eeason  of  God — 
Divine  attributes  employed  in  the  Creation  and  Govern- 
ment of  the  world)  "  was  with  God"  ;  inherent,  that  is, 
in  Him,  of  course  ; — "  was  God,"  because  belonging  to 
His  essential  nature.  The  syntax  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage obliged  him  to  seem  at  least  to  personify  the 


INPERIOEITT  AND   SUBORDINATIOX   OF   CHEIST.      113 

**  Logos"  or  Word ;  to  speak  of  it  figuratively  as  a 
person ;  because  tlie  Greek  noun  is  in  the  masculine 
gender,  and  therefore  requires  the  personal  pronouns 
in  apposition  with  it  to  be  in  the  same  gender  ;  whereas 
our  English  noun  "word,"  by  which  it  is  translated,  is 
in  the  neuter  gender,  and  requires  the  neuter  pronouns. 
Hence  in  the  third  verse  of  the  passage  under  consider- 
ation it  would  be  more  agreeable  to  the  English  idiom 
to  read  "  All  things  were  made  by  2^,"  etc.  In  another 
work  by  this  same  Apostle,  that  which  he  has  here 
called  simply  the  Word^  he  there,  in  the  opinion  of  many 
commentators,  calls  the  Word  of  Life,  and  the  Life.'*'  But 
while  in  the  Greek  the  Word  is  masculine,  the  Life  is 
feminine  ;  consequently  by  neither  expression  could  he 
have  intended  to  designate  a  proper  person,  but  used 
simply  a  figure  of  speech,  a  personification. 

In  all  languages,  ancient  and  modern,  the  Prosopo- 
poeia or  Personification  is  a  figure  in  frequent  use.  In 
the  Book  of  Proverbsf  there  is  a  remarkable  personifi- 
cation of  wisdom  ;  the  corresponding  word  to  which  in 
the  Greek  translation  or  Septuagint,  is  that  in  St. 
John's  Proem,  Aoyog,  Logos.  A  striking  example  occurs 
in  the  Apocryphal  Book  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomoni;.  : 
"  Thine  Almighty  Word  leaped  down  from  heaven 
from  his  royal  throne,  a  fierce  warrior,  into  the  midst 
of  a  land  of  destruction."  The  author  of  this  book 
lived  at  or  a  little  before  the  time  of  Christ,  and  wrote 
in  Greek  ;  and  was  doubtless  acquainted  with  the  Neo- 
Platonism  of  the  period.     In  the  passage  referred  to 

*  Ist  Ep.  of  John  1 :  1,  2.  f  Ch.  8.  X'^^'  15. 


114      INFEEIOEITY  AND    SUBOEDINATION   OF   CHEIST. 

and  in  otliers,*  the  noun  translated  in  our  version 
Word  is  in  the  original,  Logos.  The  same  remark  holds 
of  a  passage  in  another  Apocryphal  Book,  '•'' Ecclesias- 
ticus''' ;  \  where  again  we  have  a  personification  of 
Wisdom  or  the  Logos^  as  in  the  passage  cited  above  from 
"Proverbs."  In  all  these  cases  the  Greek  term  Logos 
has  been  by  our  translators  rendered  Wisdom  or  Word 
interchangeably,  as  though  these  terms  were  synony- 
mous or  equally  significant. 

But  look  further  on.  In  the  fourteenth  verse  the 
Apostle  says  :  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us,  full  of  grace  and  truth  ;"  '■'  dwelt"  he  means 
of  course  in  Christ ;  in  whom  the  Power  and  Wisdom 
of  God  were  the  credentials  of  his  divine  mission,  and 
who  was  filled  with  God's  own  mercy  and  truth  for  the 
salvation  of  men.  In  a  parenthesis  he  adds — "  and  we 
beheld  his  glory" — underived  glory  ?  Ko  :  "  the  glory 
as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father."  Still  more,  with 
all  that  he  has  previously  said,  he  proceeds  in  the 
eighteenth  verse  distinctly  to  afS.rm,  that  ''  no  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only-begotten  Son 
who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared 
(revealed,  made  more  clearly  known,  manifested,) 
Him.":]:  Multitudes  had  seen  Christ;  and  in  Christ, 
His  brightest  manifestation,  His  chosen  and  anointed 
messenger  and  representative,  they  had  seen  in  a  high 
sense,  in  the  only  sense  possible,  the  God  who  sent  him. 

*  9  :  1 ;  16  :  12,  13,  16.  f  24  :  1,  et  seq. 

%  This  18th  V.  illustrates  two  passages  before  commented  on,  viz. 
John  14 :  9,  10  and  1  Tim,  3:16;  supra  pp.  98  and  109. 


INPEEIOEITY  AIO)   SUBOEDINATION   OF   CHRIST.       115 

Yet  once  more.  If  St.  Jolm  intended  to  teacli  that 
bis  Master  was  God,  tlie  Absolute,  tlie  Supreme  God, 
would  lie  not  have  said  so  plainly  ?  Why  use  a  cir- 
cumlocution ?  Why  all  this  ado  about  the  Logos  ? 
Why  not  have  continued  to  call  him  God  throughout 
his  Gospel,  throughout  his  Epistles  and  Apocalypse, 
which  he  has  never  done  ?  Why,  on  the  contrary, 
write  of  him  always  as  "  the  Son"-— "the  Son  of  God" 
—"the  Son  of  Man"— "the  Christ"  ?  Nay,  reverting 
again  to  the  close  of  his  Gospel,  why  did  he  not  there, 
when  summing  up  his  labors,  declare  explicitly — 
"  These  are  written  that  ye  might  helieve  that  Jesus  is 
God''' — instead  of,  as  he  does — "These  are  written,  that 
ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
GOD  ;  and  that,  believing,"  (believing  that,  believing 
so,)  "ye  might  have  life  through  his  name"  ?* 

"In  the  beginning"  of  all  things — we  may,  then, 
understand  the  Evangelist  to  say — this  vast  creating 
Power  and  Wisdom  was  put  forth.  It  "  was  with 
God"  ;  inherently  subsisting  in  and  nothing  separate 
from  Him,  the  Great  First  Cause.  "  It  was  God"  ;  no 
agent  existing  or  acting  apart  from  God ;  but  essentially 
Himself;  God  exerting  His  active  energy  by  and 
through  His  own  Wisdom  and  Power,  which  "  in  the 
beginning"  was  inherent  in  Him,  essential  to  His  God- 
head. By  it  were  all  things  without  exception  cre- 
ated. It  was  the  source  or  spring  of  all  Life,  the 
natural  Light  of  all  men.  But  this  Light,  before  the 
Gospel  was  revealed,  shone  on  a  darkened  world  "  which 
comprehended  it  not." — Thus  interpreted,  St.  John 

*  John  20:  81. 


116      INPERIOEITT  AND   SUBORDINATION   OF   CHRIST. 

obviously  and  most  distinctly  maintains  the  strict,  sim- 
ple, undivided  Unity  and  Supremacy  of  God.* 

Taking,  then,  these  five  verses  of  the  first  chapter 
of  St.  John's  Gospel  by  themselves,  it  seems  plain  that 
he  makes  no  personal  reference,  direct  or  indirect,  to 
his  Master.  He  aims,  rather,  to  correct  those  false 
philosophic  notions  of  his  day,  which  either  clashed 
with  the  great  fundamental  doctrine  of  all  true  religion, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Unity  and  Sovereignty  of  God ;  or 
which  were  but  a  veiled  Atheism.  When,  however^ 
we  come  to  the  fourteenth  verse,  we  there  find  him  as- 
serting that  the  same  Wisdom  and  Power  by  which 
God  made  the  universe,  ''dwelt"  in  Jesus ;  so  that  he 
was  lifted  thereby  out  of  the  sphere  of  ordinary  hu- 
manity ;  became  a  Divine  Teacher ;  wielded  superhu- 
man Power ;  and  by  direct  commission  and  authority 
from  God,  introduced  and  established  in  the  world  that 
holy  religion  of  which  John  was  his  Apostle,  and 
which  is  God's  great  and  surpassing  gift  to  the  race. 

I  hold,  then,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Supreme 
and  proper  Deity,  is  directly  opposed  by  his  own  ex- 
press words,  and  by  those  of  his  Apostles. — By  his 
own:  "And  behold,  one  came  and  said  unto  him, 
Good  Master,  what  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life  ? 
And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ? 

*  "  It  is  contended,  indeed,"  says  Prof.  Norton,  "  that  his  words  admit 
of  a  different  meaning  ;  that  the  Logos  (Word)  is  here  spolien  of  as  a 
proper  person ;  but  that  this  person  is,  at  the  same  time,  declared  to 
be,  literally,  God.  But  if  we  so  understand  St.  John,  his  words  will 
express  a  contradiction  in  terms.  '  The  Logos,'  he  says,  '  was  with 
God,'  which,  if  the  Logos  be  a  person,  necessarily  implies  that  he  is  a 
different  person  from  God.  Whoever  is  with  any  being,  must  be  diverse 
from  that  being  with  whom  he  is." — Reasons^  etc.  pp.  SlV,  318. 


INFERIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OP   CHRIST.      117 

There  is  none  good  but  One,  that  is  God."*  "  Yerily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  him- 
self. .  .  .  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing."t  "My 
Father  is  greater  than  all."t  "  My  Father  is  greater 
than  I."§  It  is  pertinent  to  ask  here,  how  do  these, 
especially  the  two  last,  citations,  correspond  or  harmo- 
nize with  the  alleged  coequality  of  the  Three  Persons 
of  the  Trinity  ? — By  the  words  of  his  Apostles :  ' '  There 
is  .  .  .  one  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism ;  One  GOD 
and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all, 
and  in  you  all."  1  "  There  is  none  o^Aer  God  but  One.  For 
though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven 
or  in  earth,  (as  there  be  gods  many  and  lords  many^) 
but  to  us  there  is  but  ONE  GOD,  the  Father,  of  whom 
are  all  things,  and  we  in  him ;  (or,  "  for  him,  i.  e.  to 
him  our  service  and  worship  are  due,"  as  Mr.  Locke 
interprets  ;  or,  "  to  whom  we,  as  dependent  creatures, 
belong,"  as  Bp.  Pearce.)  "And  One  Lord,  Jesus  Christ, 
by  whom  all  things"  ("  belonging  to  the  new  spiritual 
creation  or  dispensation — through  w4iom  the  blessings 
and  discoveries  of  the  Gospel  have  been  given,"Tf)  "  and 
we  by  him,"  ("  and  by  whom  we  have  access  unto  the 
Father."**)  "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have 
delivered  up  the  Kingdom  to  GOD,  even  the  Father  ; 
when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and  all  authority 
and  power.  For  he  must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  things 
under  his  feet.  The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed, 
is  Death.   For  '  He  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet.'ff 

*  Matt.  19  :  16,  \1.  f  Jo^n  ^  :  19-30.  %  Id.  10  :  29. 

§  Id.  14  :  28.  1  Ephes.  4  :  5,  6,  ^  Grotius. 

**  1  Cor.  8  :  4-6.  \\  Vid.  Psalm  110  :  1. 


118      INPEEIORITT  AND   STJBOEDINATION   OF   CHEIST. 

But  wlien  lie  saith,*  All  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is 
manifest  tliat  lie  is  excepted,  which  did  put  all  things 
under  him.  And  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued 
unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject 
unto  Him  who  did  put  all  things  under  him,  that  GOD 
may  be  all  in  all."f 

Such  language,  surely,  needs  no  explanation.  It  is 
clear,  explicit,  intelligible  to  the  humblest  reader.  It  is 
but  a  specimen  of  what  we  constantly  meet  in  the  New 
Testament.  To  hold  to  Christ's  proper  and  Supreme 
Deity  in  the  face  of  such  direct  testimony,  nay,  in  the 
face  of  the  whole  tenor  and  drift  of  Holy  Scripture,  is, 
to  say  the  least,  amazing.  It  becomes  nothing  else, 
nothing  more  than  a  mere  inference  from  some  few 
and  confessedly  difScult  texts.  The  Koman  Catholic 
church  has  always  insisted,  bear  in  mind — and  if  this 
dogma  is  to  be  held  at  all,  she  is  right — that  so  few  and 
difficult  are  the  passages  of  Scripture  from  which  it  is 
attempted  to  infer  it,  that  the  traditions  of  the  Church 
are  essential  to  proVe  it  a  part  of  Christian  belief,  and 
that  it  cannot  be  proved  from  Scripture  without  them. 
Kay,  some  of  her  most  famous  doctors  have  distinctly 
denied  that  it  can  even  be  inferred  from  Scripture,  and 
rest  it  entirely  on  Tradition.:]: 

Who,  then,  is  Christ  ?  I  will  not  dogmatize.  This 
is  not  a  question  on  which  that  would  become  me  or 
any  man.    God  has  been  pleased  to  keep  some  mystery 

*  *'  When  it  is  said."    Abp.  Newcome. 

f  1  Cor.  15  :  24-28. 

X  E.  g.  Masenius,  Melchin  Canus,  Witsius ;  cited  by  Wilson,  Conces- 
sions, etc.,  p.  51.  Vid.  also,  H'y  Taylor's  ^'■Ben  Mor decays  Apology,''' 
p.  46,  et  seq. 


INFEEIOEITY  AND  SUBORDINATION   OP   CHRIST.        119 

around  it.  If  it  be  not  so,  what  can  we  make  of  our 
Lord's  positive  declaration  recorded  in  Luke  and  Mat- 
thew, "  Ko  man"  (or,  more  conformably  with  our  Eng- 
lish idiom,  no  one)  "  knoweth  ivho  the  Son  is^  but  the 
Father"  ?*  Surely  there  is  that  belonging  to  Christ, 
if  words  have  any  meaning,  which  no  one  but  the 
Father  knows. 

Admit,  then,  that  there  is  a  degree  of  mystery  sur- 
rounding this  question,  making  it,  perhaps,  one  of  the 
things  which,  like  "  the  times  and  the  seasons"  of  which 
after  his  Eesurrection  our  Lord  spoke,  "the  Father  hath 
put  in  His  own  power,"  and  therefore  "not  for  us  to 
know"  till  He  shall  give  us  more  light ;  what  then  ? 
Other  points,  points  of  the  highest  practical  moment  and 
profoundest  interest,  are  made  perfectly  plain,  and  stand 
out  on  the  sacred  page  beyond  all  doubt  or  dispute  by 
any  who  rest  on  the  authority  of  Holy  Writ.  On  that 
authority  I  profess  to  stand.  On  that  authority  I  plant 
myself  in  this  entire  argument.  I  make  no  pretensions 
to  being  wise  above  what  is  there  written.  And,  there- 
fore, according  to  that  Book  which  is  to  Protestants  the 
common  standard  of  revealed  truth,  I  am  ready  and 
glad  of  the  opportunity  to  make  full  and  distinct  con- 
fession of  what  I  understand  and  preach  as  the  Unit- 
arian Faith. 

I  Believe,  then,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  This  I 
would  emphasize.  This  of  itself  and  alone  is  a  great 
point.  How  remarkable  that  passage  in  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  !  "  Jesus  asked  his  disci- 
ples, saying,  '  Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of 

*  Matt.  11  :  27;  Luke  10:22. 


120      INTEKIOEITY  AND   SUBORDINATION    OF   CHRIST. 

man,  am  ?'  And  they  said,  '  Some  say  that  thou  art 
John  the  Baptist ;  some,  Elias ;  and  others  Jeremias, 
or  one  of  the  prophets.'  He  saith  unto  them,  '  But 
whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ?'  And  Simon  Peter  answered 
and  said,  '  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
GOD.'  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  '  Bless- 
ed art  thou,  Simon  Barjona,  (son  of  Jonah) ;  for  flesh 
and  blood  have  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Fa- 
ther who  is  in  heaven.'  "  Our  Lord  is  not  content  with 
simply  approving  Peter's  declaration  as  true ;  he  pro- 
nounces him  specially  blest  in  being  able  to  make  it, 
because  resting  on  no  mere  human  speculation,  but  on 
revelation  from  the  Father.  I  call  this  a  great  truth  ; 
assuredly  it  is.  If  any  single  truth  be  fundamental  in 
our  religion,  this  is.  It  involves  the  veracity  of  our 
Lord  himself  Deny  it,  and  you  deny  him.  It  is  the 
point  on  which  he  always  insisted ;  and  which,  after 
his  Ascension,  was  the  turning  point  in  the  preaching 
of  his  Apostles.  It  is  the  connecting  link  between  the 
Old  and  the  ISTew  Dispensation.  It  is  the  result  to 
which  the  long  and  golden  thread  of  ancient  Prophecy 
leads,  and  in  which  it  ends.  I  am  speaking,  of  course, 
of  matters  of  strictly  Christian  faith  or  belief;  and  in 
such  a  connection  recognize  no  hair-splitting  between 
a  technical  and  a  spiritual  Christianity.  I  well  remem- 
ber that  the  English  Deists  of  the  seventeenth  and  eight- 
eenth centuries,  like  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  and 
others,  at  times  spoke  quite  as  respectfully  of  our  Lord 
and  of  his  religion  as  many  of  the  modern  rationalistic 
school  in  our  own  day.  In  the  early  part  of  the  last 
century,  Tindal  entitled  his  Deistical  attack  upon  Christ- 
ianity, "  Christianity  as  old  aa  the  Creation";  because, 


INFERIOKITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OF   CHRIST.       121 

forsooth,  as  he  argued,  all  truth  being  eternal,  if  Christ- 
ianity contain  truth,  it  can  be  no  revelation  or  discov- 
ery. On  the  other  hand,  to  deny  Jesus  to  be  the 
Christ,  on  the  ground  that  that  is  a  mere  Jewish  idea 
never  to  he  realized^  as  has  been  recently  done  in  our 
own  vicinity,  is  only  to  evade  the  point  at  issue.  No 
matter  that  the  gross  ideas  which  possessed  the  Jewish 
mind  in  our  Lord's  time  were  disappointed.  He  was 
all  the  more  needed  to  correct  those  ideas,  and  lift  the 
people  from  their  grossness.  The  question  is  not  whe- 
ther he  met  the  worldly  and  coarse  expectations  of  the 
masses  of  his  day,  but  whether  he  was  the  Predicted, 
the  Promised  Messiah,  "the  very  Christ";*  the  spe- 
cially Anointed  Messenger  and  Eepresentative  of  God  ; 
which  last  all  Christendom  always  has  affirmed  and 
affirms  still.  "  That  we  might  believe  that  Jesus  is 
THE  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"-!-  was  the  great  purpose 
for  which,  as  we  have  seen,  St.  John  declares  he  had 
written  his  Gospel. 

I  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  not  merely 
a  son  of  God,  as  we  all  may  be  through  that  "  glorious 
freedom"  which  is  secured  to  us  through  the  Gospel ; 
not  a  son  of  God,  as  all  intelligent  beings  are,  accord- 
ing to  our  Lord's  great  revelation  of  the  Fatherhood 

*  John  7  :  26.  The  Greek  adverb  here  rendered  "  very,"  in  our 
Common  Version,  occurs  previously  in  the  same  verse,  and  is  there 
rendered  "indeed";  and  again  in  v.  40  of  the  same  chapter,  and  is 
there  rendered  "  of  a  truth."  A  good  rendering  would  be  by  our  Eng- 
lish adverbs,  truly^  really.  Griesbach,  and  after  him  Alford,  rejects  the 
adverb  where  it  occurs  the  second  time  in  v.  26.  Then  the  passage 
would  read,  "  Do  the  rulers  really  know  that  this  is  the  Christ"  ? 

f  John  20  :  31. 


122       INFERIOEITY  AND    SUBOEDINATION    OF   CHRIST. 

of  the  Supreme  ;  but  the  Son  of  God  in  a  high,  special, 
peculiar,  unrivalled  sense ;  a  title  by  which  he  is  desig- 
nated as  holding  a  singular  and  most  intimate  relation- 
ship to  the  Father.  This  is  elsewhere  expressed  by 
the  phraseS;  "  the  only-begotten  Son  who  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father"  ;  "  my  beloved  Son" ;  "the  Son 
of  God  with  power" ;  "  him  whom  the  Father  hath 
sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world."* 

I  believe  him  the  one  Mediatoe  ;  according  to  the 
words  of  St.  Paul,  who  declares  that  "  there  is  One 
God,"  also  "  One  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the 
man  Christ  Jesus. "f  I  thank  God  that  there  is.  I 
bless  God  that  He  has  provided  for  me — frail,  weak, 
imperfect,  tempted,  erring,  sinner  as  I  am — ^this  gracious 
channel  of  communication  between  Him  and  my  soul. 
I  confess,  humbly  yet  joyfully  confess  the  need.  I 
know  myself  too  well  to  decline  or  deny  it. 

I  believe  him  to  be  our  Saviour — our  compassionate, 
self-sacrificing,  loving,  all-siifi&cient  Saviour.  My  soul 
gladly  responds  to  that  declaration  of  the  same  Apos- 
tle, "  This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  accept- 
ation, that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners"  ::|:  and  to  that  of  the  Apostle  Peter  :  "  Neither 
is  there  salvation  in  any  other ;  for  there  is  none  other 
name  under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we 
must  be  saved."§  "Him,"  whom  "God  hath  thus 
exalted  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to  give  repent- 
ance and  forgiveness  of  sins,"||  I  confess  and  rejoice  in, 
as  "  His  unspeakable  Gift."Tf 

*  John  1:18;  Matt.  3  :  17  ;  Rom.  1:4;  John  10  :  36. 

f  1  Tun.  2:5.  %  \  Tim.  1  :  15.  §  Acts  4  :  12. 

II  Id.  5  :  31.  t  2  Cor.  9:  15. 


INFEEIOEITY  AND    SUBOEDIXATION   OF   CHRIST.       123 

Finally,  I  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Incaenate  Woed 
— "  the  Word  made  flesh."*  In  Jesus  was  the  Divine 
Word  or  Logos  ;\  which  qualified  him  for  his  great 
mission ;  which  constituted  him  the  most  illustrious 
Eepresentative  and  Manifestation  of  God — in  the  glow- 
ing language  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  the 
brightness  of  God's  glory,  the  express  image  of  His 
person"  ;:|:  which  made  his  words  the  words  of  God, 
his  works  the  works  of  God ;  which  inspired  him  with 
superhuman  wisdom,  clothed  him  with  superhuman 
powers,  took  him  utterly  out  of  the  category  of  ordi- 
nary humanity,  placed  him  far  above  all  previous 
Prophets  and  Messengers  from  God,  and  gave  him 
rank  second  only  to  the  Supreme  in  His  moral  uni- 
verse. I  gratefully  acknowledge  and  bow  to  his  Au- 
thority. In  my  profoundest  religious  consciousness, 
I  regard  his  words  as  of  the  same  binding  force  as 
though  they  were  uttered  evidently  and  audibly  to  me 
from  the  opened  heavens  by  the  Almighty  Himself 

But  in  saying  all  this,  remember,  I  "  confess  him" 
only  "  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."§  I  clare 
not  say  less ;  for  there  is  his  own  emphatic  declaration : 
"  Whosoever  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I 
confess  before  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  But  who- 
soever shall  deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny 
before  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  "||  How  confess 
him,  if  not  in  the  very  oflS.ces  he  claimed  ? — I  dare  not 
say  more ;  assuredly,  I  dare  not  say  aught  which  shall 
seem  as  far  as  words  can  to  dethrone  Gocl,  aught  which 

*  John  1  :  14.       f  Yid.  supra,  pp.  103-104,  etc.       %  Heb.  1  :  3. 
§  Philipp.  2:11.         ||  Matt.  10  :  32,  33. 


124      INFERIORITY  AND   SUBORDINATION   OF   CHRIST. 

shall  seem  to  derogate  from  tlie  essential,  underived, 
unrivalled  Supremacy  of  the  Father.  I  know  that  I 
am  required  to  "  honor  the  Son,  even  as  I  honor  the 
Father"  ;^  but  in  this  connection  I  also  know  that  I 
can  honor  the  Father  rightly  and  j  astly,  only  by  re- 
ceiving and  honoring  the  Son  as  His  Minister  and 
Kepresentative,  in  precisely  those  Offices  and  Relations 
in  which  it  has  pleased  Grod  to  place  and  reveal  him. 
I  should  dishonor  Grod,  nay,  I  should  dishonor  the  Son, 
by  attempting  any  thing  more. 

Herein  may  be  seen,  that  Divinity  of  Christ  which 
the  Unitarian  Church  affirms ;  not  his  Deity,  for  that 
is  another  matter,  and  that  it  denies.  Christ  is  Divine, 
but  He  is  not  GOD.  His  Divineness  or  Divinity,  is 
because  of  his  intimate,  peculiar,  in  some  degree  even, 
mysterious,  union  with  the  Father ;  because  of  his 
Offices,  Powers,  Grifts;  because  that  ''in  him  dwelt  all 
the  falness  of  the  Godhead  bodily"  ;f  and  because  he 
is  thus  "  Head  over  all  to  the  Church.":]: 

Such  in  this  respect,  I  understand  to  be  Unitarian 
Christianity^  or.  Christian  Unitarianism.  It  is  the  faith 
which,  with  unshaken,  unwavering,  increasing  confi- 
dence that  it  is  the  truth  of  God,  I  for  more  than  thirty 
years  have  preached ;  the  faith  in  which  I  rejoice  to 
live,  and  hope  to  die.  Any  thing  less  in  regard  to 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  I  do  not  acknowledge  to  be 
Christian  Unitarianism ;  or,  indeed,  any  thing  less  to 
be  Christianity.  I  accept,  I  hold  as  dearer  than  life, 
Christianity  as  a  Revealed  Religion,  a  direct  and  ex- 
press Revelation  "from  the  Father  of  lights."     In  the 

*  John  5  :  23.  f  Col.  2:9.  %  Eph.  1  :  22. 


INTEEIOEITY  AOT)   SUBOEDINATION   OF    CHEIST.       125 

limited  sense  of  Monotlieism,  tliere  are  various  forms 
of  Unitarianism.  It  may  be  Deism,  Eationalism,  Na- 
turalism ;  all  virtually  tlie  same  thing ;  and  all  alike  re- 
jecting tlie  idea  of  Eevealed  Eeligion,  and  whatever  puts 
forth  the  claim.  It  may  be  Judaism,  resting  on  the  Di- 
vine Legation  of  Moses.  It  may  be  Mohammedanism 
falsely  alleging  Mohammed  to  be  the  Prophet  of  God, 
It  may  be  Hindooism,  which,  according  to  Eam  Mohun 
Eoy's  translation  of  the  Yeds,  the  Hindoo  Scriptures, 
teaches  the  doctrine  of  One  God.  All  these,  being  as 
I  have  said,  Monotheism,  are  so  far  Unitarianism.  But 
I  am  speaking  of  and  for  Christian  Unitarianism : 
which  not  only  recognizes  and  adores  One  GOD,  the 
Fathee,  but  one  Lord,  Jesus  the  Christ  ;*  bearing  on 
its  forefront  the  plain  and  explicit  words  of  that  Lord 
himself,  addressed  in  solemn  prayer  to  that  Father; 
"  This  is  Life  Eternal,  to  know  Thee,  the  Only  True 
GOD,  and  Jesus  the  Christ  whom  Thou  hast  sent."f 

1  Cor.  8:6.  f  Jo^^  l*?  :  3. 


LECTUEE    YI. 

DOUBLE    NATURE    OF    CHRIST — PERSONALITY  AND 
DEITY    OF    THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

I  FIND  myself  unexpectedly,  and  before  entering  on 
the  main  theme  of  my  present  Lecture,  obliged*  to 
turn  aside  for  a  moment,  and  consider  another.  It  is 
one  on  which  I  had  deemed  it  scarcely  necessary  to 
spend  breath,  namely,  the  Doctrine,  as  it  is  theologically 
called,  of  the  Double  Nature  of  Christ,  or  the  Hypo- 
static Union.  The  argument  from  Scripture  is  very 
limited.  Besides  two  passages  already  fully  commented 
on,f  namely,  the  Proem  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  and  a 
passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  there  are  but 
two  others  on  which  it  has  even  the  shadow  of  a  foun- 
dation. Both  occur  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans.  In 
the  first  chapter:]:  St.  Paul  has  these  words  :  "  His  Son 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  which  was  made  of  the  seed  of 
David,  according  to  the  flesh  ;  and  declared  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  with  power,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holi- 
ness, by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  In  the 
ninth  chapter  :§  "I  could  wish  myself  accursed  from 

*  By  a  respectful  letter  of  inquiry  received  after  delivery  of  the  last 
Lecture. 

f  John  1  :  1-18,  supra,  p.  111.     Phil.  2  :  6,  supra,  p.  107. 
X  w.  3,  4.  §  vv.  3,  5. 


DOUBLE   NATURE    OF    CHRIST.  127 

Clirist  for  my  brethren,  mj  kinsmen  according  to  tlie 
flesh.  .  .  .  Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  as  con- 
cerning the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  forever."  The  closing  part  of  this  second  pas- 
sage, I  have  already  commented  upon  in  another  con- 
nection.* Now  remember,  that  the  allegation  of  our 
Trinitarian  brethren  is,  that  Christ  had  two  distinct 
and  complete  natures,  Divine  and  Human  ;  in  the  one 
he  was  God,  in  the  other,  Man.  The  question  before 
us  now,  therefore,  is,  whether  these  passages  sustain 
the  allegation  ?  It  is  made  a  question,  bear  in  mind, 
as  to  nature  ;  and  because  St.  Paul,  in  the  first,  uses 
both  the  expressions,  "according  to  the  flesh,"  and 
"according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,"  with  reference  to 
our  Lord — the  one  as  being  "of  the  seed  of  David,'' 
the  other  as  being  "  the  Son  of  God  with  power" — here 
is  proof,  it  is  said,  of  his  possessing  two  natures.  But 
turn  to  the  second  passage.  There  you  find  the  Apostle 
using  the  same  phrase,  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  in  re- 
gard to  himself,  in  its  obvious  sense,  without  the  least 
reference  to  any  peculiarity  of  nature^  which,  of  course, 
in  his  case,  will  not  be  pretended  ;  but  simply  to  the  mat- 
ter of  descent  from  the  common  stock  of  all  Israelites,  by 
virtue  of  which  he  shared  with  them  "the  promises." 
Why  not,  then,  to  Jesus,  who,  by  universal  consent,  was 
"  of  the  seed  of  David,"  and  therefore  of  "  the  fathers," 
the  patriarchs  and  founders  of  the  nation ;  "of  whom, 
as  concerning'^  (the  phrase  in  the  Greek  is  the  same,  ac- 
cording to)  "  the  flesh,"  i.  e.  by  natural  descent,  he  "came," 
and  in  correspondence  with  proi^hecy,  must  have  come? 

*  Yid.  supra,  p.  95. 


128  DOUBLE  NATURE  OF  CHRIST. 

There  is  no  reasonable  pretence  for  understanding  the 
phrase  rendered  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  and  which  is 
of  frequent  and  invariable  use  elsewhere  by  St.  Paul 
in  his  Epistles,''^  with  reference  to  natural  descent^  in  an}^ 
other  sense  in  either  passage.  It  cannot  be  interpreted 
with  reference  to  his  human,  in  contradistinction  from 
his  divine  nature,  except  to  make  out  a  case,  to  support 
this  mere  hypothesis.  Paul  declares,  that  he  "  had  been 
called  to  his  Apostleship,  to  preach  the  Gospel  of  God, 
concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  (how  care- 
fully he  distinguishes  them !)  who,  he  says,  by  na- 
tural or  lineal  descent,  was  of  the  house  of  David  ;  but 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  was  demonstrated  to  be  the  Son  of 
God,  with  power,  by  his  Eesurrection  from  the  dead."f 
Thus  I  paraphrase  the  first  passage,  to  show  its  true 
meaning. 

The  other  argument  is  drawn  from  the  alleged  ne- 
cessity of  the  case.  Christ  is  sometimes  called  God, 
and  sometimes  Man.  This  must  be  explained.  Here 
is  a  mystery,  and  it  must  be  solved.  From  this  sup- 
posed necessity  springs  the  hypothesis  of  the  Double  Na- 
ture in  Christ.  "  This,"  says  "\Yardlaw,:j:  "  is  the  key 
which  fits  all  the  wards  of  this  intricate  lock,  turning 
among  them  with  hardlj^  a  touch  of  interruption,  catch- 
ing its  bolts,  and  laying  open  to  us,  in  the  easiest  and 

*E.  g.  1  Cor.  10:  18. 

f  With  St.  Paul,  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  was  the  final,  crowning 
proof  of  his  Sonship  and  Messiahship.  Acts  13  :  SO-Sl ;  1*7  :  31 ;  Horn. 
6:4;  10  :  9;  1  Cor.  15  :  15,  etc.  Paul  is  always  careful  to  attribute 
it  to  the  "  power"  of  God,  to  the  act  of  God  himself,  and  not  to  any 
independent  power  in  our  Lord. 

^  Discourses  on  the  Socinian  Controversy,  p.  44,  Amer.  ed. 


DOUBLE  NATUEE  OF  CHRIST.  129 

completest  manner  the  treasures  of  Divine  Trutli."  To 
this  I  simply  answer,  that  we  do  not  find  the  lock,  and 
therefore  we  do  not  want  the  key  ;  or  the  mystery,  and 
therefore  we  do  not  want  the  solution.  To  us  no  such 
necessity,  as  is  alleged,  exists.  The  hypothesis  is  en- 
tirely uncalled  for.  Nothing  is  plainer  than  that 
there  is  not  the  remotest  hint  of  any  such  thing  as  a 
twofold  nature  in  Christ,  in  all  his  recorded  words,  or 
in  the  writings  of  his  Apostles ;  though  it  is  hardly 
possible  that  they  should  have  been  silent  on  so  grave 
a  point,  had  there  been  in  it  any  reality.  Eegarding 
it  then  as  the  merest  hypothesis,  for  that  is  all  it  is,  we 
object,  aside  of  its  superfluity,  that  its  admission  makes 
difficulty  where  there  is  none ;  renders  vague  or  ob- 
scure the  plainest  and  most  explicit  language  of  Scrip- 
ture. It  demands  on  its  face  the  surrender  of  reason, 
and  involves  positive  absurdity.  Divine  and  human 
qualities,  as  the  essence  of  being,  cannot  co-exist  in  the 
same  person.  God  is  infinite,  man  is  finite ;  and  no 
being  can  be  at  once  and  essentially  finite  and  infinite.* 
It  estops  inquiry  by  its  plea  of  mystery  ;  and  drives 
us,  would  we  believe  it,  to  the  old  position  of  Ter- 
tullian :  Credo  quia  irapossibile  est^  (I  believe  because  it 
is  impossible.)     It  destroys  Christ's  unity,  and  makes 

*  "As  before,  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  so  now  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Hypostatic  Union,  as  it  is  called,  I  ask  for  a  single  hint  through- 
out the  New  Testament  of  the  inconceivable  fact  that,  in  the  body  of 
Jesus,  resided  the  mind  of  God  and  the  mind  of  man — two  natures,  the 
one  finite,  the  other  infinite,  yet  making  but  one  person — a  difficulty 
you  will  perceive  the  very  opposite  of  that  of  the  Trinity ;  for  whereas 
that  teaches  three  persons  in  one  nature,  this  teaches  two  natures  in 
one  person." — Rev.  J.  H.  Thorn,  Liv.  Lect.  7th  Unitarian  Lee.  p.  12. 

6* 


130  DOUBLE  NATURE  OF  CHRIST. 

him  two  distinct  and  opposite  beings.  That  Christ  is 
both  God  and  man,  is  a  proposition  plain  enough  in 
its  statement ;  but  the  two  predicates  are  incompatible. 
But  a  graver  objection  is,  that  in  effect  it  charges  our 
Lord  with  duplicity.  When  he  declared  on  one  occa- 
sion: "  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man;  no, 
not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son, 
but  the  Father"* — what  more  precise  and  significant 
words  could  he  have  used,  to  show  that  he  laid  no 
claim  to  Omniscience,  that  attribute  essential  to  Deity, 
without  which  no  being  could  be  God  ?  If  there  was 
any  one  thing  of  which  our  Lord  was  ignorant,  he 
could  not  be  God.  And  how  should  we  have  under- 
stood him,  had  we  been  present — ^how  did  the  Apostles, 
how  did  the  multitude  who  were  present,  understand 
him  at  the  time  ?  They  must  have  understood  him  as 
we  do,  to  have  made  a  positive,  express  declaration, 
that  "of  that  day  and  hour"  he  had  no  knowledge  ;t 
and  therefore  to  suppose  that  he  made  a  mental  reser 
vation,  as  to  his  divine  knowledge,  while  he  declared 
only  his  human  want  of  it,  is  to  charge  him  with  du- 
plicity, with  double-dealing,  with  deceit. 

Hence  we  object,  again,  that  it  lessens  the  force  of 
his  example.  Surely  the  least  imputation  to  Christ, 
if  there  be  reason  for  it,  of  any  such  quality  as  deceit, 

*Matt.  13:  32. 

f  The  force  of  our  position  cannot  however  be  evaded  in  this  case 
by  the  hypothesis  in  question  ;  for  our  Lord's  words  are  too  compre- 
hensive. "  No  man,"  as  I  have  already  elsewhere  observed,  excludes 
his  own  "human  nature"  ;  "neither  the  Son,"  his  divine  nature:  for 
*'  the  Son"  is  alleged  to  denote  God  the  Son,  or  specifically  the  divine 
nature  of  Christ,  in  virtue  of  which  he  is  God. 


DOUBLE    NATURE    OF    CHRIST.  131 

must  have  that  effect.  But  on  tliis  hypothesis,  what 
mean  all  his  declarations  of  dependence  on  God  ?  "Of 
mine  own  self  I  can  do  nothing ;  as  I  hear,  I  judge  ; 
and  my  judgment  is  just,  because  I  seek  not  mine  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me" ; 
just  as  he  had  before  said  :  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do."* — What  mean 
his  expressions  of  trust  in  God  ?  To  Pilate's  haughty 
menace  he  replied,  "  Thou  couldest  have  no  power  at 
all  against  me,  except  it  were  given  thee  from  above"  ; 
and  in  that  most  solemn  hour  when  he  was  drawing 
his  last  breath  upon  the  cross,  he  said  :  "  Father,  into 
thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit  !"f  To  whom  were 
these  words  addressed  ?  To  whom  was  he  accustomed 
to  pray  ?  To  one  part  of  his  nature — to  himself — to 
a  part  of  himself?  What  mockery  all  this  seems  I 
Finally,  this  hypothesis  conflicts  with  all  just  princi- 
ples of  interpretation.  "It  is  reasonable  to  expect, 
that  those  doctrines  which  form  the  leading  articles  of 
any  system,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,:]:  "  should  be  plainly 
stated  in  the  book  which  professes  to  make  that  sys- 
tem known."  Apply  this  test  to  the  doctrine — for 
sheer  hypothesis  as  it  is,  it  is  alleged  to  be  not  only  one 
but  a  "  leadiDg  article"  of  Christianity — to  the  doctrine, 
then,  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ ;  and  who  will  pre- 
tend that  it  is  "  plainly  stated"  in  Scripture  ?  But,  for 
the  obvious  principle  that  Scripture  is  to  be  interpret- 
ed like  any  other  book,  we  have  the  high  orthodox 
authority  of   Prof.   Stuart,    and   of   other  orthodox 

*  John  5  :  19,  30.  \  John  19:11;  Luke  23  :  46. 

X   Disc,  on  Soc.  p.  223. 


132  THE    HOLY    GHOST, 

critics  of  equal  eminence  witli  bim.  ^'  If  there  be," 
he  says,  "  any  book  on  earth  that  is  addressed  to  the 
reason  and  common  sense  of  mankind,  the  Bible  is 

preeminently  that  book If  the  Bible 

is  not  a  Book  which  is  intelligible  in  the  same  way  as 
other  books  are,  then  it  is  di£S.cult  to  see  how  it  is  a 
revelation the  Bible  is  addressed  to  our  rea- 
son and  understanding  and  moral  feelings ;  and  conse- 
quently we  are  to  interpret  it  in  such  a  way  as  we  do 
any  other  book  that  is  addressed  to  these  same  facul- 
ties."* These  principles  and  the  rule  they  involve,  are 
inevitably  violated  by  this  hypothesis.  By  its  admis- 
sion, the  Bible  cannot  be  interpreted  like  other  books. 
Plain  language  in  other  books  is  taken  in  its  plain 
significance ;  but  here  the  plainest  becomes  a  riddle. 
When  our  Lord  says,  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I," 
he  meant  only  that  his  divine  nature  was  greater  than 
his  human  nature !  But  who  can  prove  that  he  so 
meant  ?  Neither  he  nor  his  disciples,  give  the  slight- 
est reason  to  suppose  that  he  or  they  meant  any  thing 
but  what  their  words  obviously  mean.  Besides,  we  can- 
not tell  when  to  apply  the  hypothesis.  We  are  all  in  the 
dark ;  and  the  Scripture  may  be  made  to  mean  by  it 
the  most  contradictory  things.  Whatever  Christ  said 
or  did  may  thus  be  done  away,  and  the  entire  New 
Testament  become  a  mass  of  enigma. 

I  come  now  to  the  main  theme  of  the  present  Lec- 
ture, viz :  The  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.   And,  to  begin,  what  is  precisely  this  doctrine  of 

*  Biblical  Ropos.  vol.  ii.  pp.  129,  130. 


THE   HOLT    GHOST.  133 

the  Holy  Gliost  or  Holy  Spirit,  wliicli  Unitarians  reject  ? 
In  tlie  5th  of  the  thirty-nine  "Articles  of  Keligion"  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  we  read,  that,  "  The 
Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
is  of  one  substance,  majesty,  and  glory  with  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,  very  and  eternal  God  ;"  conformably 
with  the  1st  Article :  "  In  unity  of  the  Godhead,  there 
be  three  persons,  of  one  substance,  power,  and  eter- 
nity ;  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 

In  the  3d  sect,  of  the  2d  chap,  of  the  Presbyterian 
Confession  of  Faith,  we  have  really  the  same  state- 
ment, closing  with—"  the  Holy  Ghost  eternally  pro- 
ceeding from  the  Father  and  the  Son."  In  the  Atha- 
nasian  Creed,  it  is  said  :  "  There  is  one  person  of  the 
Father,  another  of  the  Son,  and  another  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  But  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  all  one ;  the  glory  equal, 
the  majesty  co-eternal  ....  In  this  Trinity  none  is 
afore  or  after  other,  none  is  greater  or  less  than  an- 
other. But  the  whole  three  Persons  are  co-eternal 
together  and  co-equal."  In  the  Kicene-Constantino- 
pohtan  Creed :  "  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord 
and  Giver  of  Life,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son ;  who  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  to- 
gether is  worshipped  and  glorified,  who  spake  by  the 
prophets." 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  there  are  two  branches 
of  the  doctrine  as  thus  stated ;  the  first.  Personality, 
making  the  Holy  Ghost  a  Person ;  the  second.  Deity, 
making  it  God.  To  sustain  the  popular  or  orthodox 
belief,  it  must  be  proved,  then,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
a  Person.     But,  not  to  quibble  about  the  impropriety 


134  THE   HOLY    GHOST. 

and  unnaturalness  of  attributing  without  proof  per- 
sonality to  that,  which  both  in  Greek  and  English  is 
named  by  nouns  in  the  neuter  gender,"  how  is  its  per- 
sonality supposed  to  be  proved  ? 

The  first  passage  to  which  I  refer,  as  offered  for  this 
purpose,  is  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians : 
"The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep  things 
of  God."f  To  "  search,"  is  an  attribute  of  a  Person, 
or  a  personal  attribute ;  therefore,  the  Spirit  is  a  Per- 
son. But  this  reasoning  proves  too  much ;  for  in  the 
next  verse  the  Apostle  thus  proceeds :  "  For  what  man 
knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  man 
which  is  in  him  ?  Even  so,  the  things  of  God  know- 
eth no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God."i  To  "  know"  is 
a  personal  attribute;  therefore  the  "spirit  of  man"  is 
a  Person.  —  Is  it?  Assuredly  the  language  of  Paul 
proves  it  to  be,  quite  as  conclusively  as  the  "  Spirit  of 
God." 

Again:  "Wherefore,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  saiih^  'To- 
day, if  ye  will  hear,' "  etc.g — The  writer  to  the  He- 
brews quotes  from  the  ninety -fifth  Psalm;  and  the 
words  quoted  are  the  words  of  the  Psalmist.  Turn  to 
the  second  epistle  of  Peter,  ||  and  the  matter  is  all  ex- 
plained :  "  For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by 
the  will  of  mmi^  but  holy  men  of  God  SPAKE  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Psalmist  was 
one  of  these  "holy  men  of  God,"  and  "spake"  as  he 
was  "  moved  by  the"  Spirit  of  God. 

Again  :  "  Why  hath  Satan  filled  thy  heart  to  lie  to 

*  Gr.  UvEvfia,  Pneuma—'Eng.  Ghost  or  Spirit.  \  2  :  10. 

:j:  ICor.  2:  11.  §  Heb.  3:7.  ||   1:21. 


THE   HOLY   GHOST.  135 

the  Holy  Gliost  ?  Thou  hast  not  lied  lanto  man,  but 
unto  God !""  What  proof  is  there  here  of  distinct 
personality  ?  This  passage  is  one,  in  which  the  terms 
Holy  Ghost  and  God  are,  as  occasionally  elsewhere, 
used  synonymously ;  in  other  words,  the  phrase  Holy 
Ghost  is  here  and  elsewhere  used  to  signify  God  Him- 
self; precisely  as  we  speak  of  a  man's  spirit  as  the  man 
himself,  without  the  remotest  hint  or  idea  of  more  than 
one  person. 

In  John's  Gospel  the  question  is  supposed  by  Trini- 
tarians to  be  put  entirely  at  rest.  "  I  will  pray  the 
Father,  and  He  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that 
he  may  abide  with  you  forever,  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth ;  whom  the  world  cannot  receive  because  it  seeth 
him  not,  neither  knoweth  him ;  but  ye  know  him,  for 

he  dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you 

But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  the 
Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all 

things When  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom 

I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit ' 
of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall 
testify  of  me  .    .   .    .   If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter 
will  not  come  unto  you ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send 
him  unto  you,  and  when  he  is  come  he  will  reprove,  etc. 

When  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he 

will  guide  you  into  all  truth ;  for  he  shall  not  speak 
of  himself,"  (i.  e.  of  course,  not  of  his  own  suggestion), 
"but,  whatsoever  he  shall  hear,"  (i.  e.  whatsoever  shall 
be  communicated  to  him),  "that  shall  he  speak,"  etc.f 

I^ow  in  the  first  place,  what  marvellous  language 

*  Acts  5  :  3,  4.        f  John  14  :  16,  17,  26  ;  15  :  26 ;  16  :  7,  8,  13. 


136  THE   HOLY   GHOST. 

this,  for  one  co-equal  Grod  to  use  of  another  co-equal 
God !  The  whole  is  incompatible  with  co-equalitj. 
But,  on  the  Trinitarian  hypothesis  there  are  three  co- 
equal Gods ;  and  yet  the  second  promises  to  pray  to 
the  first,  and  then  he  will  give  the  third.  In  one  place 
it  seems  that  the  first  will  send  the  third  in  the  name 
of  the  second ;  and  then,  that  the  second  will  send  him 
from  the  first.  And  then,  again,  the  third  will  not 
come  while  the  second  is  here,  and  not  till  he  sends 
him  after  his  own  departure.  Moreover,  when  the 
third  comes,  to  be  a  guide  into  all  truth,  his  ability  is 
not  inherent,  not  underived,  but  dependent  on  the 
communications  he  may  receive. 

Again,  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  throughout,  "the 
Holy  Ghost"  — "the  Comforter "  —  " the  Spirit  of 
Truth,"  are  all  synonymous  phrases,  or  titles,  inter- 
changeably used  of  the  same  subject. 

Next,  that  in  each  case  where  either  is  used,  there  is 
a  plain  distinction  from  God — from  the  Father^  who  is 
H^-od. 

And,  finally,  this  being  so,  that  which  is  thus  dis- 
tinguished from  God,  cannot  be  God ;  and  since  God 
is  necessarily  alone  Supreme,  it  must  be  subordinate  to 
and  dependent  on  Him.  Accordingly,  it  is  said  to  be 
sent  from  the  Father^  to  proceed  from  the  Father,  to  be 
sent  at  the  instance  of  Christ  praying  to  the  Father. 

The  truth  is,  that,  at  the  most,  there  runs  through 
these  entire  extracts  from  our  Lord's  farewell  discourse, 
a  rhetorical  prosopopoeia  or  personification  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  And  yet,  perhaps,  hardly  so  much  as  that, 
when  we  consider  the  structure  of  the  Greek  language 
and  the  necessities  of  its  syntax.     To  explain:  the 


THE   HOLT   GHOST.  137 

Greek  pronouns,  relative  and  personal,  have  distinct 
genders,  and  terminations  marking  these  genders ;  and 
in  use  take  of  course  the  gender  of  the  nouns  to  which 
they  are  applied.  "  The  Comforter"  is  in  Greek  a  mas- 
culine noun,  and  should  have  masculine  pronouns. 
But  "the  Comforter"  is  "the  Holy  Spirit;"  and 
"Spirit"  is  a  neuter  noun,  and  should  have  neuter 
pronouns.  This  rule  is  strictly  adhered  to  in  the 
original ;  but  not  in  our  version,  where  in  one  of  these 
extracts  the  neuter  noun  "  Spirit,"  is  followed  by  the 
personal  instead  of  neuter  pronouns.'"'  In  the  Kev.  L. 
A.  Sawyer's  new  Translation — heralded  by  so  many 
orthodox  trumpets — this  error  is  corrected  ;  and  there 
the  passage  thus  reads  as  it  ought — "  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
which  the  world  cannot  receive,  because  it  beholds  it 
not,  nor  knows  it ;  but  you  know  it^  because  it  con- 
tinues with  you  and  shall  be  in  you."  It  is  plain,  then, 
that  the  use  of  the  personal  pronouns  does  not  here 
prove  personality  in  the  subject  to  which  they  are  ap- 
plied; for  the  synonym  here  used  for  "  the  Comforter ^'^ 
which,  being  masculine,  has  the  masculine  pronouns, 
is  "the  Holy  Spirit;"  which,  though  neuter,  has  in  our 
version  the  masculine  pronouns. 

Still  more ;  if  the  use  of  pronouns  is  to  determine 
this  question,  then  the  Greek  original  viewed  as  a 
whole,  conclusively  decides  against  the  alleged  person- 
ality of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  words  Holy  Ghost, 
Holy  Spirit,  (both,  in  Greek,  the  same  phrases,)  the 
Spirit,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  occur  more  than  a  hundred 
times  in  Scripture;  always  in  the  neuter  gender,  of 

*  John  16  :  14. 


138  THE   HOLY   GHOST. 

course ;  always,  of  course,  with  corresponding  neuter 
articles,  adjectives,  participles,  pronouns ;  not  once, 
therefore,  is  the  Holy  Ghost  spoken  of  in  all  these 
times  as  a  person  but  a  thing.  In  this  discourse  of  our 
Lord  occurs  the  only  exception;  and  this,  where  he 
gives  the  Holy  Spirit  the  new  title  of  "  the  Comforter," 
using  a  Greek  noun  of  the  masculine  gender,  and  so 
of  necessity  or  design,  or  both,  so  far  personifying  it. 
Yes,  this  is  a  solitary  exception ;  it  stands  alone ;  and 
may  have  been,  as  already  said,  a  mere  matter  of  ne- 
cessity by  reason  of  the  Greek  syntax.  Taking  it, 
however,  in  its  strongest  aspect,  as  a  designed  person- 
ification, it  is  only  of  figurative  significance  and  cer- 
tainly proves  no  personality.  The  single  exception 
cannot  destroy,  but  rather,  proves  the  rule.  The  single 
passage,  or  class  of  passages,  where  the  figurative  ex- 
pression was  used  on  a  single  occasion,  cannot  control 
the  more  than  a  hundred  literal  and  plain  ones. 

Besides,  "the  promise"  of  "the  Comforter"  was  re- 
newed after  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord,  but  the  per- 
sonification was  dropped.  "  Behold,"  he  said,  "  I  send 
the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you ;  but  tarry  ye  in 
the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  endued  with  power 
from  on  high."*  Luke,  who  records  this  in  his  Gospel, 
in  the  opening  of  the  Acts  f  alludes  to  it,  and  makes 
our  Lord  say — "Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  ....  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you."  "  The  promise"  is 
sufficiently  explained  then,  by  the  phrases  "  endued 
with  power  from  on  high"— -'^  baptized  with  the  Holy 

*  Luke  24  :  49.  f  1 :  4,  5,  8. 


THE   HOLY   GHOST.  139 

Ghost" — "  receive  power."  It  was  fulfilled  at  Pente- 
cost, wlien  we  read  that  "  thej  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues  as 
the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance" ;  and  more  distinctly 
and  in  direct  reference  to  this,  Peter  said  on  that  occa- 
sion— "  Jesus  ....  being  by  the  right  hand  of 
God  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the 
promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hath  shed  forth  this^  which 
ye  now  see  and  hear."*  But  how  was  "  the  promise" 
fulfilled  ?  Were  the  assembly  " filled"  by  a  ''Person" ; 
or,  by  a  mighty  influence  and  inspiration  ?  By  the 
coming  of  a  ''  Person" ;  or,  by  wondrous  symbols  and 
gifts? 

These  texts  exhaust  the  Scriptural  argument.  The 
Holy  Ghost  or  Spirit,  is  not  a  Person ;  is  not  God,  ex- 
cept as  the  phrase  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  Him, 
the  Supreme.  That  the  terms  Holy  Ghost,  Holy 
Spirit,  Spirit  of  God,  Spirit,  are  thus  used,  both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  no  one  denies.f  Taken, 
however,  as  the  names  of  a  third  person  of  the  Trinity, 
he  cannot  be,  even  according  to  the  Creeds  as  we  have 
already  seen,  self-existent,  underived,  unoriginated,  of 
independent  being,  which  God  must  be ;  for  they,  so 
far  following  Scripture,  declare  that  he  proceeds  from 
the  Father,  who  confessedly  is  God ;  and,  therefore,  he 
is  subordinate  to  Him,  the  Supreme.  But  they  have 
not  even  the  least  color  of  being  names  of  a  "  Third 
person"  or  of  any  person,  with  the  single  exception 
above  stated.     Most  commonly  and  significantly,  they 

*  Acts  2  :  4,  33. 

f  Job  33  :  4 ;  Ps.  139  :  7 ;  Acts  5  :  8,  4,  9  ;  15  :  28. 


140  THE   HOLY   GHOST. 

are  used  to  denote  certain  powers,  gifts,  influences,  aids, 
supernaturally  imparted  by  tlie  Deity  to  tlie  Prophets,* 
to  Christ, f  to  the  Apostles,  and  the  converts  to  the 
early  Church,  whether  Jews  or  Grentiles.:]:  The  '  'devout" 
Watts,  whose  hymns,  written  during  his  Trinitarian 
days,  are  the  staple  of  most  English  and  American 
"collections,"  says  in  his  "Faithful  Inquiry,"  "the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  New  Testament,  when  it  speaks  of 
things  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  very  generally,  or 
for  the  most  part  means,  that  power  or  influence  of  the 
eternal  Spirit  of  God,  which  proceedeih  from  the  Fa- 
iher:'% 

That  this  view  is  the  true  one,  and  comprehends  the 
full  Scriptural  idea,  follows  from  the  common  expres- 
sions of  Scripture  in  this  connection.  The  Holy  Spirit 
is  said  to  be  "shed  upon"  men|| — to  be  "poured  out" 
upon  theniT" — to  be  "  given"  by  God** — to  be  received 
as  a  gift-tt  Men  are  said  to  be  "  filled  with,"  "  full  of," 
the  Holy  Ghost.^  "If,"  says  Dr.  Watts,  "the  Holy 
Spirit  were  really  a  true  and  proper  person,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  account  for  all  these,  and  as  many  more 
expressions  of  Scripture,  which  cannot  possibly  be 
ascribed  to  a  proper  person;  and  if  in  some  places 
these  impersonal  expressions,  or  in  other  places  the 
personal  expressions,  must  be  figurative,  why  may  not 

*  Old  Testament  everywhere.  f  Matt.  12  :  28;  Luke  1  :  15. 

X  Acts  2;  id.  11  :  15,  etc. 

§  Faithful  Inquiry  after  the  ancient  and  original  Doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  p.  30. 

I  Tit.  3:6.         If  Acts  10  :  45.  **  John  3  :  34 ;    1  John  4:13. 

If  Acts  2:  38;  8:17.  ^:t  Acts  2  :  4;  11 :  24;  13  :  52.     See 

Isa.  11:2. 


THE    HOLY    GHOST.  141 

my  explication  of  them  do  as  well  as  tlie  contrary  ? 
And  thus  the  Spirit  of  God  need  not  anywhere  be  con- 
strued into  a  real^  proper^  distinct  per son^'^ 

The  Holy  Ghost  is  personified — what  then  ?  Per- 
sonification is  a  figure  of  speech  ;  and  by  it  any  thing 
may  be  made  to  appear,  so  far  as  language  is  concerned, 
a  person.  We  constantly  use  it,  in  familiar,  as  well  as 
in  solemn  discourse.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  personified, 
and  that  is  all ;  being  only  personified,  it  is  not  a  Per- 
son, any  more  than  is  "  the  Law"t  which  is  said  to  be 
spealdng ;  or  "the  Scripture"  (the  Old  Testament):]: 
which  is  represented  as  foreseeing  and  preaching ;  or 
Sin,§  which  is  described  as  deceiving  and  slaying ; 
or  Charity,!  because  so  beautifully  personified  by  St. 
Paul.  Remarkable  instances  of  the  personification  of 
Wisdom  were  cited  in  the  last  Lecture,  from  the  Pro- 
verbs and  the  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Is  Wisdom,  therefore,  or  the  Law,  or  Scripture, 
or  Sin,  or  Charity,  each  a  Person  ?  And  if  the  Holy 
Spirit  be  personified  as  the  Comforter,  as  teaching, 
speaking,  testifying,  reproving,  why  any  more  should  it 
be  regarded  as  a  distinct  Divine  Person — or  still  more, 
as  God  from  all  eternity  ? 

Ram  Mohun  Roy,  having  shown  the  strange  and  re- 
pulsive results  which  must  follow  in  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture  from  the  principle  of  making  the  Holy 
Ghost  "a  third  distinct  person  of  the  Godhead,  equal 
in  power  and  glory  with  the  Father  of  all,"  closes  with 
this  striking  remark :  "  Still  more  dangerous  to  true 

*  Faithful  Inquiry,  p.  30.  f  Rom.  3:19.  %  Gal.  3  :  8. 

§Rom.  7:  11.  li  1  Cor.  13. 


142  THE    HOLY   GHOST. 

religion  would  it  be  to  interpret,  according  to  tlie  Trini- 
tarian mode,  the  passages  which  describe  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Grhost  npon  Jesus  on  the  occasion  of  his 
baptism.  Luke,  ch.  3  ver.  22  :  '  And  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove  upon  him.' — 
For  if  we  believe  that  Spirit,  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  or 
in  any  other  bodily  shape^  was  really  the  third  person 
of  the  Godhead,  how  can  we  justly  charge  with  ab- 
surdity the  Hindoo  legends  of  the  Divinity  having  the 
form  of  a  fish  or  of  any  other  animal  F""^ 

"We  demand  to  know  what  good  reason  can  be  as- 
signed for  the  remarkable  silence  of  our  Lord  and  his 
Aportles  upon  this  point,  if  indeed  it  be  true,  or  a  re- 
quired part  of  our  Christian  faith  ?  Assuredly,  they 
never  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person  distinct  from 
God,  or  a  third  person  of  the  Godhead.  If  it  be  a  dis- 
tinct Divine  Person,  to  bo  separately  worshipped  as 
verily  God,  why  have  they  not  so  told  and  so  directed 
us  ?  Never,  not  in  a  single  instance,  are  Vi^e  taught  by 
them  to  worship  the  Spirit.  On  the  contrary,  Jesus 
directs  us  to  worship  the  Father,  f  and  his  own  example 
is  uniformly  consistent  with  that  direction^     He  in- 

*  2d  Appeal,  p.  234.  As  a  specimen  of  Ram  Mohun  Roy's  reasoning 
alluded  to  above,  he  says  :  "If  the  term  '  Holy  Ghost'  be  synonymous 
with  the  third  person  of  the  Godhead,  and  '  Christ'  with  the  second 
person,  these  passages  may  be  read  as  follows  :  '  He,  the  second  per- 
son, shall  baptize  you  with  the  third  person  of  the  Godhead,  and  with 
fire.'  [Luke  3:  16.]  'God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  (the  second 
person  of  the  Godhead)  with  the  third  person  of  the  Godhead,  and 
with  power,' "  etc.  etc.  See  2d  Appeal,  pp.  232-234 ;  indeed,  the 
whole  of  chap.  6. 

f  E.  g.  John  4  :  23,  24  ;  Matt.  6  :  9. 

X  E.g.  Matt.  11:  25;  John  lY. 


THE   HOLY    GHOST.  143 

striicts  lis  to  ask  tlie  Father  for  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit.*  How  carefully  do  he  and  his  Apostles  dis- 
tinguish the  Spirit  as  "the  Spirit  of  God"  If  "The 
Spirit"  is  never  joined  with  "the  Father"  and  "Son" 
in  the  very  places  where  it  were  most  natural  to  expect 
it  would  be,  if  it  were  intended  we  should  understand 
or  interpret  it  according  to  the  Trinitarian  theology. 
For  example,  our  Lord,  in  solemn  prayer  to  the  Father, 
says :  "  This  is  Life  Eternal,  to  know  Thee,  the  only 
true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  Thou  hast  sent.":j: 
I  lay  stress  on  these  words.  Can  it  be  supposed  that 
he  did  not  know  whom  he  thus  addressed  ?  Not  a 
word  is  said  of,  no  allusion  is  made  to,  the  Spirit. 
Throughout  the  prayer,  full  and  prolonged  as  it  is,  this 
holds  true.  Kenrjark,  then,  that  he,  the  Son,  that  same 
Jesus  of  whom  he  himself  speaks  as — not  God — not 
"  God  the  Son"— but  the  Christ,  "  sent"  of  the  Father, 
addresses  that  Father  as  the  only  true  GOD.  I  feel 
that  I  might  well  content  myself  with  this,  so  emphatic, 
so  explicit  is  the  language  ;  so  memorable  the  occasion 
when  it  was  used,  when,  if  ever,  he  would  speak  as 
the  case  demanded ;  when  he  would  declare  who  was 
the  ONLY  TEUE  GOD  ;  and  as  is  the  fact  did  de- 
clare that  THE  FATHER  was  He. 

Take  other  examples  from  the  introductory  saluta- 
tions of  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  To  the  Romans  :  "  Grace 
to  you,  and  peace,  from  God  our  Father,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  To  the  (2d  Ep.)  Corinthians:  "Grace 
be  to  you,  and  peace,  from  God  our  Father,  and  from 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     Blessed  be  God,  even  the  Fa- 

*  Luke  11:11.      f  Matt.  12 :  28  ;  Rom.  8 :  9,  14 ;   1  Cor.  2  :  11. 
t  Johu  17:3. 


144  THE   HOLY    GHOST. 

ther  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ" — mark  this  language — 
"the  Father  of  mercies,  and  the  God  of  all  comfort." 
To  Titus :  "  Grace,  mercy,  and  peace,  from  God  the 
Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."  See 
how  distinctly  the  Father  alone  is  recognized  as  God ; 
and  how  in  each  case  no  mention  is  made  of,  no  refer- 
ence is  had  to,  the  Spirit.  Without  a  single  excep- 
tion, this  is  true  of  all  these  introductory  salutations  in 
the  Pauline,  while  there  is  nothing  but  what  is  in  en- 
tire harmony  with  them  in  the  other  Apostolic  Epistles : 
as  for  example,  in  the  second  of  St.  John,  we  read : 
"  Grace  be  with  you,  mercy,  and  peace,  from  God  the 
Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
Father."*  Nay,  in  his  first  Epistle  John  says  :  "  Truly 
our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  His  Son 
Jesus  Christ."f  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  these  inspired 
Apostles,  knowing  that  there  was  a  Trinity  of  Persons 
in  the  Godhead — "  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and 
God  the  Holy  Ghost" — should,  nevertheless,  in  every 
case,  not  only  thus  carefully  distinguish  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son ;  but  in  every  case,  style  the  Fa- 
ther alone  God  ;  so  emphatically  make  the  Son,  His 
Son  ;  and  all  the  while  utterly  ignore  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 
Look,  moreover,  at  those  solemn  charges  which  St. 
Paul  gave  to  Timothy  his  "  own  son  in  the  faith."  ''  I 
charge  thee  before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christy 
and"— (the  Holy  Ghost  ?  No.  But)—"  the  elect  an- 
gels.":!: "  I  give  thee  charge  in  the  sight  of  God,  who 
quickeneth  all  things ;  and  before  Christ  Jesus,  who 
before  Pontius  Pilate  witnessed  a  good  confession  •  that 

*  See,  also,  1  Pet.  1 :  2,  3.  f  1  John  1  :  3. 

X  1  Tim.  5  :  21. 


THE    HOLY    GHOST.  145 

thou  keep  this  commandment  without  spot,  unrebuka- 
ble,  until  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ; 
which  in  His  times  He  shall  show  who  is  the  Blessed 
and  Only  Potentate,  the  King  of  Kings,  and  Lord  of 
Lords ;  who  only  hath  immortality,  dwelling  in  the 
light  which  no  man  can  approach  unto  ;  whom  no  man 
hath  seen  nor  can  see :  to  whom  be  honor  and  power 
everlasting.  Amen.""^  Kot  only  is  the  same  distinction 
preserved  in  both  passages,  on  which  I  have  remarked 
before,  between  the  Father  as  God,  and  Christ  as 
LoED  ;  but  in  the  last,  the  Apostle,  as  if  for  the  very 
purpose  of  keeping  before  the  mind  of  Timothy  the 
unchallenged  and  absolute  Supremacy  of  the  One  Grod 
the  Father,  breaks  forth  into  a  glowing  and  sublime 
description  of  Him,  and  yet  makes  no  reference  to  or 
mention  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Why  did  he  not,  in  those 
introductory  salutations  above  recited,  in  these  charges 
thus  solemnly  given,  speak  of  Christ  as  "  God  the 
Son,"  instead  of  Lord,  if  such  he  knew  or  believed 
him  to  be  ?  "Why  did  he  not  charge  Timothy  hefore 
^^Ood  the  Holy  Ghost,^^  as  well  as  before  the  other  au- 
gust names  there  named,  if  such  he  knew  or  believed 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  be?  There  can  be  but  one  answer. 
He  neither  knew  nor  believed  the  one  or  the  other. 

Finally,  the  history  of  this  doctrine  of  the  Person- 
ality and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  condemns  it.  For 
nearly  four  centuries  it  was  scarcely  dreamed  of;  it 
had  no  place,  certainly,  in  the  "Christian  conscious- 
ness" of  the  mass  of  believers.  It  was  a  thing  of 
time,  and  of  degrees,  because  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
itv  of  which  it  is  a  part,  was  such.     '•  The  desire  of 

*  1  Tim.  fi  :  13-lfi  ;  vide   also,  2  Tii 

7 


146  THE   HOLY    GHOST. 

bringing  tlie  doctrine  of  tlie  Trinity  to  a  conclusion^  led 
gradually  to  more  definite  views  on  the  personality  of 
tlie  Holy  Gliost."  So  says  Hagenbacli,  writing  of 
what  was  accomplished  during  what  he  styles  "  The 
First  Period"  of  the  history  of  the  church  or  from 
A.D.  80  to  A.D.  254.'"'  Could  any  language  better  illus- 
trate the  fact,  that  not  upon  clear  Scripture  testimony, 
but  upon  the  arguments  of  polemics,  and  the  decrees 
of  councils,  this  doctrine  was  built  ?  "  The  subject  of 
the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  says 
Prof  Norton — and  his  testimony,  after  his  profound 
study  of  the  subject  is  not  lightly  to  be  set  aside — 
"  was  in  a  very  unsettled  state  before  the  Council  of 
Constantinople  (a.d.  881. )"t  "A  hundred  and  fifty 
bishops,"  says  Mosheim,  "  who  were  present  at  the 
Council,  gave  the  finishing  touch  to  what  the  Council 
of  Nice  (a.d.  824)  had  left  imperfect ;  and  fixed,  in  a 
full  and  determinate  manner,  the  doctrine  of  three  Per- 
sons in  one  God.":|:  He  had  previously  said  :§  "  The 
subject  of  this  fatal  controversy,  which  kindled  such 
deplorable  divisions  throughout  the  Christian  world, 
was  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead ;  a  doc- 
trine which  in  three  preceding  centuries" — he  is  writ- 
ing of  the  fourth  century — "  had  happily  escaped  the 
vain  curiosity  of  human  researches,  and  been  left  unde- 
fined and  undetermined  by  any  particular  set  of  ideas." 
Here  we  may  leave  the  subject.      The  History  of 

*  Hist,  of  Doctrine,  vol.  i.  p.  125.  f  Statement,  etc.  p.  43. 

:j:  Mosheim's  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  326. 

§  Id.  p.   314.     See   also,    Mucnscher's   Dogmat.    Hist.    (Murdoch's 
Transl.)  p.  60.     Sparks'  Letters  to  Wyatt,  p.  181. 


THE   HOLY    GHOST.  147 

the  Churcli  on  its  dogmatic  side,  shows  the  origin  of 
this  doctrine  to  have  been  any  thing  but  Scriptural. 
The  New  Testament,  in  Mr.  Wardlaw's  words,  "  the 
book  which  professes  to  make  the  Christian  system 
known,"  is  on  this  subject  silent ;  is,  by  the  showing 
even  of  orthodox  critics  of  the  highest  repute,  at 
least  very  reserved  upon  it.  Our  Lord,  in  what  may 
be  reverently  called  his  definition  of  that,  which,  as 
knowledge,  at  least,  really  secured  "  Eternal  Life," 
entirely  omitted  it.  And,  although  there  can  be  no 
Trinity  in  the  modern  orthodox  sense  without  it,  what 
an  ominous  silence  to  a  very  great  degree  is  there  in 
Trinitarian  pulpits  and  works  respecting  it !  How  lit- 
tle is  heard,  how  little  in  our  day  is  written,  about  it ! 
Does  not  a  strong  presumption  against  it  hence  arise  ? 
The  discussion  of  the  Trinity  closes  with  this  Lec- 
ture. As  Unitarians  we  reject  the  dogma  of  a  Tri- 
Personal  God,  as  a  monstrous  fiction.  We  believe,  as 
firmly  and  gratefully  as  any  of  our  Christian  breth- 
ren of  any  branch  of  the  Universal  Church,  in  the 
Father,  in  the  Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost — the  simple 
and  only  Trinity  of  the  Apostolic  age  and  the  First 
ages  of  the  Church.  It  is  not  the  province  of  any  who 
may  differ  from  us  to  deny  that  we  do,  merely  because 
of  that  difference.  "  To  his  own  Master,  each  stand- 
eth  or  falleth."— The  Holy  Ghost,  what  is  it  but  the 
Spirit  of  God  ?  And  as  we  say  that  the  spirit  of  a 
man  is  the  man  himself,  so  we  may  say  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  God  Himself  But  more  commonly  it  is  to 
be  regarded  as  that  holy  influence  by  which  God,  our 
heavenly  Father,  moves  upon,  renews,  and  sanctifies 
the  hearts  of  His  children ;  aids  them  in  difficulty, 


148  THE   HOLY   GHOST. 

strengthens  them  in  temptation,  prompts  tliem  to  re- 
pentance, comforts  them  in  sorrow,  inspires  in  them 
noble  resolve,  nerves  them  for  high  moral  action,  and 
quickens  them  in  duty.  ''  In  the  name  of  the  Father, 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  we  baptize  the 
adult  believer,  and  the  infant  of  the  believer,  as  com- 
manded by  our  Lord ;  nor  can  we  ask  or  pronounce 
any  higher  blessing  for  ourselves  or  for  others,  than 
what  is  expressed  in  the  significant  words  of  the  Apos- 
tolic benediction:  "The  Glrace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Love  of  God,  and  the  Communion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all !" 


LECTURE    YII 


hum:a:n-  natuee. 


What  is  tlie  doctrine  wliich  I  am  to  oppose  in  tins 
Lecture  ?  The  9tli  Article  of  Religion  of  tlie  Episco- 
pal Church  declares,  that  "  Original  sin  standeth  not 
in  the  following  of  Adam,  but  it  is  the  fault  and  cor- 
ruption of  the  Nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally  is 
engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam,  whereby  man  is 
very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  is  of 
his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  so  that  the  flesh  lusteth 
always  against  the  Spirit ;  and  therefore  in  every  per- 
son born  into  this  world,  it  deserveth  God's  wrath  and 
damnation." 

In  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession 
we  read  that  "  By  this  sin  ('  of  our  first  parents')  they 
fell  from  their  original  righteousness  and  communion 
with  Grod,  and  so  became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  de- 
filed in  all  the  faculties  and  parts  of  soul  and  body. 
They  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this 
sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  cor- 
rupted nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descend- 
ing from  them  by  ordinary  generation.  From  this 
original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed, 
disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly 
inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  transgres- 


150  HUMAN   NATURE. 

Accordingly  we  find  an  English  Episcopal  Divine 
saying :  ''  Yes,  man  is  a  ruined  creature,  under  the 
practical  dominion  of  his  carnal  affections  and  appe- 
tites    In  the  day  that  Adam  sinned,  you 

and  I  sinned,  and  our  children  sinned,  and  their  child- 
ren who  are  yet  unborn  sinned ;  for  all  men  sinned 
while  as  yet  there  was  only  one  man.  Adam  stood  as 
the  head  of  the  whole  human  race  :  while  he  was  holy, 
all  were  holy  in  him  ;  while  he  was  innocent,  all  were 
innocent  in  him ;  when  he  fell,  all  fell  in  him ;  when 
death  passed  on  him,  death  passed  on  all ;  when  he 
became  alienated  from  the  love  of  God,  so  as  to  hide 
himself  in  terror,  we  all  became  alienated ;  when  he 
deserved  hell,  so  did  we  all."" 

So  an  eminent  Presbyterian  clergyman  of  the  neigh- 
boring metropolis  says:  " By  the  doctrine  of  the  im- 
putation of  Adam's  sin,  many  of  the  Reformers  meant 
that  innate  moral  depravity  of  heart,  and  consequent 
condemnation,  which  came  upon  all  his  posterity  by 
his  first  offence.  This  appears  to  me  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  Native  Depravity By  the  wise  appoint- 
ment of  God,  this  primitive  sin  constituted  all  his  pos- 
terity sinners.  When  he  fell,  prospectively  considered, 
they  fell ;  and  from  the  moment  of  his  apostacy,  the 
entire  race,  of  every  age  and  every  condition,  down  to 
the  last  infant  that  should  be  born  on  the  earth,  rose 
up  to  the  view  of  the  divine  mind,  as  lost  and  ruined 
by  their  iniquity.  Such  is  the  condition  to  which  the 
first  apostacy  introduced  the  race It  is  not 

*  Rev.  H.  McNeile,  M.A.,  of  Liverpool,  Eng,,  7th  Lect.  on  the 
*'  Unitarian  Controversy,"  pp.  297,  303. 


HUMAN   NATURE.  161 

necessary  for  us  to  do  any  tiling  to  ruin  our  cliildren  • 
they  are  ruined  alreadj^  .  .  .  We  consecrate  our  child- 
ren to  God  (in  baptism),  not  because  they  are  incapable 
of  moral  action — not  because  they  are  innocent — but 

because  they  are  sinners N'or  is  my  native 

depravity  my  misfortune  merely,  but  my  fault.  Sure 
I  am  that  I  stand  condemned  at  the  bar  of  conscience 
and  at  the  bar  of  God,  for  my  native  depravity."* 

That  these  statements  are  not  universally  accepted 
by  orthodox  theologians,  I  gladly  admit;  and  hail 
the  fact  among  the  symptoms,  already  too  many  to 
bo  ignored,  of  a  great  advance  in  the  orthodox  body 
towards  more  just  and  liberal  views.  The  late  Pro- 
fessors Stuart  of  Andover,  and  Taylor  of  ISTew-Ha- 
ven,  really  came  to  the  decision  that  infants  are  inca- 
capable  of  sinning.  Nay,  "  the  Kew-IIaven  Divinity," 
as  it  was  commonly  and  often  by  its  orthodox  oppo- 
nents contemptuously  called,  and  of  which  the  "  Christ- 
ian Spectator"  was  the  expounder,  taught  views  on  a 
part  of  this  subject  thirty  years  ago,  largely  approach- 
ing in  some  of  its  statements  those  of  Unitarians  ;  and 
they  were  met  by  the  writer  in  the  Dissertation  from 
which  I  last  quoted,  and  by  others,  with  unsparing 
condemnation.  He  there  characterized  those  views  as 
"  both  false  and  dangerous,"  and  'Hhe  spirit  with  which 
they  were  disseminated"  as  "a  bold  and  vaunting 
spirit."  They  are  now  widely  received  and  constantly 
preached  by  many  prominent  men  in  various  orthodox 
denominations.      The  Old  and  New  Schools  of   the 


*  Rev.  Gardiner  Spring,  D.D.,  Dissertation  on  Native  Depravity,  pp. 
19,  20,  90,  92. 


152  HUilAN   NATURE. 

orthodox  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  Churches, 
and  the  Low  Church  and  High  Church  in  the  Episco- 
pal body,  are  respectively  wide  apart  in  their  teaching 
on  this  subject.  With  the  more  liberal,  rational,  and 
Scriptural  views  in  some  respects  held  by  the  latter 
upon  it,  we  have  little  controversy ;  while  we  deem 
those  of  the  former  so  false,  irrational,  and  unscrip- 
tural,  that  we  shall  do  battle  with  them  to  the  last. 
Still  they  who  in  those  churches  hold  the  truer  views, 
so  long  as  they  accept  and  defend  the  dogmatic  state- 
ments of  their  Articles,  Confessions  and  Creeds,  not- 
withstanding all  their  explanations  or  criticisms,  must 
be  held  responsible  for  the  errors  which  those  Articles, 
Confessions  and  Creeds  perpetuate.  They  should  not 
be  allowed  to  think  they  can  shelter  themselves  under 
those  explanations  and  criticisms.  By  the  Articles, 
Confessions,  and  Creeds,  to  which  they  subscribe,  or 
belief  in  which  they  profess,  and  which  are  published 
to  the  world,  as  the  dogmatic  basis  on  which  their 
Churches  rest,  must  the  faith  of  those  Churches  be 
tried.*  Now  on  no  point  of  Christian  doctrine,  is  it  of 
more  practical  importance  that  right  views  should  pre- 
vail, than  on  this  before  us.  The  old  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine of  Native  Depravit}^,  Original  Sin,  is  traceable 
to  Augustine,  early  in  the  fifth  century  of  the  Christ- 
ian era.  No  single  mind  has  exerted  a  more  decisive 
influence  on  the  theology  of  Christendom  as   to  this 

*  Consult  Barnes'  Introd.  Essay  to  Butler's  Ana.logy,  pp.  xxxv., 
xxxviii.,  xxxix ;  Prof.  Stuart  on  the  Romans,  particularly  Exc.  5 ; 
Chr.  Spectator  for  June,  1829,  p.  3-18,  et  al. ;  Chr.  Examiner,  vol.  ix. 
pp.  220-227  ;  Spring  on  Native  Depravity,  passim. 


HUMAN   NATUEE.  153 

point,  in  connection  with  tlie  whole  popular  theory  of 
redemption  by  Christ.  And  no  single  corruption  of 
the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  has  kept  a  more  tena- 
cious hold  on  the  Church,  or  been  of  more  baleful 
effect,  than  this  of  which  he  is  the  author. 

There  are  obviously  two  branches  to  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  Human  Nature:  —  1.  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin;  2.  the  total  corruption  of  Human  Nature, 
as  the  consequence  of  Adam's  fall.  The  first,  is  vir- 
tually yielded  by  the  New  School  Calvinists  as  they 
have  been  called ;  but  the  second  seems,  at  least  in 
words,  clung  to  still.  "  The  imputation  of  Adarri's  sin 
to  his  posterity ^^''  said  Dr.  Woods,  "  in  any  sense  which 
those  words  naturally  and  properly  convey,  is  a  doc- 
trine which  we  do  not  believe"  ;  and  again  :  "  Every 
attempt,  which  has  been  made,  to  prove  that  God  ever 
imputes  to  man  any  sinful  disposition  or  act,  which  is 
not  strictly  ^25  own^  has,  in  my  judgment,  failed  of  suc- 
cess."* The  only  wonder  is,  that  the  "  attempt"  should 
ever  have  been  made.  Yet  before  this,  he  had  stated 
"  the  doctrine  which  the  Orthodox  in  New-England 
hold"  on  the  second  branch  of  the  subject  to  be — ^Hhat 
Tfien  are  hy  nature  destitute  of  lioliness  ;  or  that  they  are 
subjects  of  an  innate  moral  depravity;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  they  are  from  the  first  inclined  to  evil,  and 
that,  while  unrenewed,  their  moral  affections  and  actions 
are  wholly  wrong,  "f  The  Italics  in  these  extracts  are 
in  the  original ;  I  certainly  have  no  disposition  to  con- 
tradict the  position  in  the  last  extract,  ''  that  men  are 
by  nature  destitute  of  holiness."     It  is,  so  far  as  it 

*  Letters  to  IJnitarians,  pp.  44,  45.  f  Id.  p.  31. 

7* 


154  HUMAN   NATURE. 

goes,  strictly  Unitarian,  and  no  Unitarian  will  deny  it. 
But,  in  the  same  breath  to  say,  "  that  they  are  subjects 
of  an  innate  moral  depravity''' ;  or,  much  more,  by  the 
phrase  ''  in  other  words,"  to  try  to  make  it  appear  to 
be  synonymous  with  saying,  "  that  they  are  from  the 
first  inclined  to  evil"  ;  nay,  "  that  while  unreneiued, 
their  moral  affections  and  actions  are  wholly  wronf'' ;  is 
not  only  an  entirely  different  matter,  but  simply  mon- 
strous. What  is  it,  in  reality,  but  a  re-assertion  of  the 
Old  Calvinism ;  or,  if  not,  and  meant  as  a  substitute 
for  it,  where  is  the  gain  ? — So  the  late  Dr.  Taylor  of 
New-Haven  said :  "A  ground  of  certainty  exists  in 
the  mind  of  each  individual  of  our  race,  that  the  first 
and  all  subsequent  acts  of  moral  agency,  will  uniformly 
he  sinful^  previous  to  regeneration^  And  Prof.  Stuart 
said :  "I  admit  that  all  are  born  in  such  a  state,  that  it 
is  now  certain  they  will  be  sinners  as  soon  as  they  are 

moral  agents they  are  in  such  circumstances 

that  they  luill  all  sin  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  sinning, 
and  never  do  any  thing  holy  until  they  are  regenerated. 
.  .  .  All  came  into  the  world  in  such  a  state,  as  makes 
it  certain  that  their  a2:)petites,  which  lead  to  sin,  ivill  pre- 
vail ;  and  they  never  will  have  any  holiness,  until  they 
are  born  again."*  These  distinguished  men  opposed 
as  firmly  as  Dr.  Woods,  the  doctrine  of  "the  imput- 
ation of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity"  ;  and  then,  offered 
this  "modern  substitute  for  a  Sinful  Nature,"  as  it  was 
styled  in  an  admirable  paper  by  the  late  Dr.  Noah 
Worcester.f     To  such  statements.  Dr.  Ware  of  Cam- 

*  Stuart's  Comm.  on  Eom^pp.  240,  242,  526. 
f  Chr.  Examiner,  vol.  ix.  N.  S.  p.  219. 


HUMAN   NATURE.  155 

bridge,  in  reply,  well  stated  tlie  Unitarian  position 
thus :.-  "  Man  is  by  nature — ^by  wbicb  is  to  be  under- 
stood, as  he  is  born  into  the  world,  as  be  conies  from 
the  hands  of  his  Creator — innocent  and  pure;  free 
from  all  moral  corruption,  o.s  icell  as  destitute  of  all 
positive  holiness."* 

Taking,  therefore,  the  Orthodox  view  in  its  least  ob- 
jectionable statement,  as  a  whole,  it  seems  presump- 
tively, irreconcileable  with  the  character  of  God  as  a 
Father,  as  that  is  declared  and  illustrated  in  the  Gospel. 
ISTo  good  parent,  least  of  all  the  impartial  and  All-perfect 
Father,  whom  Christ  has  brought  near  to  our  religious 
faith  and  love,  could  thus  regard  his  children.  In  the 
case  of  God  however,  he  is  not  only  their  Father,  but 
their  Creator ;  and  in  both  relations  His  character  must 
be  harmonious.  To  have  created,  nay,  to  continue  to 
create,  for  centuries  past  and  for  unknown  centuries  to 
come,  a  race  of  beings,  who  "  will  be  sinners  as  soon 
as  they  are  born" — of  whom  it  is  "certain  that  their 
'  first'  act  of  moral  agency,  '  previous  to  regeneration,' 
will  be  sinful,  and  that  their  appetites  which  lead  to 
sin,  will  prevail" — making  them  thus  "liable  to  all 
punishments  in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come"t 

is,  I  repeat,  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  Parental 

Character  of  the  Almighty,  as  portrayed  by  the  Sav- 
iour ;  nay,  with  all  our  natural  conceptions  of  a  Just 
and  Eighteous  God.  If  this  argument  be  not  con- 
clusive against  that  view,  it  assuredly  is  enough  to  re- 

*  Ware's  Letters  to  Trinitarians,  p.  20. 
f  "  Larger  Catechism,"  Ans.  to  Quest.  27. 


156  HUMAN   NATURE. 

strain  "as  from  accepting  it,  except  upon  unquestion- 
able Scri|)tural  authority. 

So,  again,  the  doctrine  is  in  itself  repulsive.  The 
human  mind  instinctively  revolts  at  it.  And  this  be- 
ing so,  the  very  fact  suggests,  that  with  a  mind  so  sen- 
sitive, the  moral  nature  of  man  cannot  be  so  corrupt. 
If  God  our  Creator  has  implanted  within  us  a  natural 
sense  of  right  and  wrong,  that  sense  arraigns  His  cha- 
racter and  conduct  in  creating  us  thus  corrupt. 

All  observation  and  experience  contradict  the  view 
under  consideration.  Dr.  Spring,  who  holds,  indeed, 
the  extreme  doctrine  of  his  Church  on  this  subject, 
only  follows  out,  after  all,  to  their  legitimate  result, 
the  principles  of  orthodoxy,  when  he  says:  "AVhat 
reason  have  we  for  solicitude  on  account  of  our  children! 
They  are  horii  in  sin.  They  partake  of  the  same  sin- 
ning, corrupt  nature  with  their  parents.  From  the 
crown  of  their  heads  to  the  soles  of  their  feet,  they  are 
full  of  wounds,  and  bruises,  and  j^utrifying  sor(s,  that 
have  not  been  bound  wp,  nor  mollified  with  ointment. 
Their  hearts  are  full  of  evil,  and  in  them  there  dwelleth 
no  good  thing.  They  are  estranged  from  the  icomb  ;  they 
go  astray  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  speaking  lies.  Their 
'poison  is  like  the  poison  of  cl  serpent.  It  is  as  natural  for 
them  to  sin,  as  it  is  for  the  sting  of  a  serpent  to  be  poi- 
sonous. They  are  under  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God, 
and  there  is  no  redemption  for  them  but  through  the 
propitiation  of  his  only  Son.  What  spectacle  is  more 
affecting  than  an  immortal  being  entering  upon  its  only 
probation,  with  such  a  character !  Every  time  you 
look  upon  a  little  child,  or  a  sleeping  infant,  you  see 
—  what?     An  apostate  sinner — man  &llen  —  human 


HUMAN    NATURE. 


157 


nature  in  ruins  !  When  you  clasp  your  fond  babe  to 
your  bosom,  well  may  solicitude  and  compassion  find 
a  dwelling  within  your  heart.  With  all  those  linea- 
ments of  intelligence,  and  of  beauty  and  amiableness, 
they  are  dead  in  sin.  That  warm  heart  that  trembles 
and  beats  at  your  side,  'beats  iniquity  and  death.' 
Ah  !  how  often  have  the  interest  and  pride  of  many  a 
gratified  parent  been  turned  to  tenderness  and  tears,  as 
she  bore  her  endeared  offspring  in  her  arms,  and  re- 
collected that  it  is  the  child  of  ivrath,  even  as  othersr^' 
Mothers !  this  is  addressed  to  you.  Whose  of  your 
hearts  responds  to  such  an  appeal  as  true  ?  Did  I  not 
know  that  the  now  venerable  author  was  a  sincere, 
devout,  and  exemplary  Christian  minister,  I  should 
suppose  this  mere  poetry  ;  albeit  belonging  rather  to 
the  Satanic  school  than  to  that  founded  on  the  Gospel. 
As  it  is,  it  famishes  but  another  striking  and  grateful 
illustration  of  how  much  better  a  man  may  be  than  his 
creed. 

After  all,  the  great  point  at  issue  is,  not  whether 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  human  depravity,  a  great  deal 
of  it,  for  no  one  denies  that ;  but,  whence  came  it  ? 
Not,  whether  men  be  depraved,  for  they  are  greatly ; 
but  how  do  they  become  so  ?  The  question  really  is, 
being  corrupt,  being  depraved,  are  they  born  corrupt, 
does  God  bring  them  into  the  world  depraved  ?  Ad- 
mit that  men  are  in  the  highest  conceivable  or  possible 
degree  depraved,  it  would  by  no  means  follow,  that 
there  was  any  original,  inherent  moral  taint.  Violent 
passion,  brutal  excess  of  appetite,  foul  intemperance, 

*  Dr.  Spring  on  Nat.  Depravit)^  pp.  87,  88. 


158  HUMAX    NATURE. 

self-indulgence,  selfisliness,  violated  rights,  injustice, 
fraud,  pride,  oj^pression,  slavery,  war,  and  a  tliousand 
other  bad  things  or  bad  traits  there  may  be,  and  yet  no 
original  taint  or  incapacity.  But  I  deny  that  in  the 
main,  mankind  are  as  bad  as  represented.  There  is  cur- 
rent and  gross  exaggeration  on  that  point.  On  the  con- 
trar}^,  there  is  more  virtue  than  vice ;  more  goodness  than 
wickedness.  The  one  is  retired,  noiseless,  modest ;  the 
other,  bold,  noisy,  rude.  ISTothing  is  easier,  than  by  par- 
tial or  exclusive  coloring,  to  make  the  picture  bright  or 
dark.  You  may  bring  into  a  single  view  all  conceiv- 
able vice,  all  conceivable  virtue.  Test  the  popular  doc- 
trine by  Infancy.  If  there  be  any  marked  character- 
istics of  infancy,  they  are  simplicity,  artlessness,  free- 
dom from  everything  deserving  suspicion,  veracity,  in- 
nocence, purity.  Marks  enough  there  are  of  helpless- 
ness, weakness,  dependence,  but  none  of  duplicity  or 
malignity.  With  scarcely  an  exception,  infancy  is  inter- 
esting. What  a  wondrous  concession  is  that  of  Prof. 
Stuart,  that  "  all  men  pronounce  infants  to  be  innocent, 
until  theory  bids  them  contradict  this."*  But  surely, 
were  Calvinism  true,  this  could  not  be. 

Holy  Scripture  warrants  no  such  theory,  no  such 
belief,  as  the  popular  theory,  the  orthodox  belief.  The 
general  drift  of  the  sacred  volume  is  the  other  way. 
Its  commands,  its  warnings,  its  threatenings,  its  pre- 
cepts, its  exhortations,  its  promises,  are  all  by  neces- 
sary implication  opposed  to  it.  They  cease  to  have 
force,  they  fail  of  meaning  or  justness,  upon  such  a 
basis.     Why  command,  why  warn,  why  threaten,  v,diy 

*  As  quoted  by  Dr.  G.  Spring,  in  "Native  Depravity,"  p.  71. 


HUMAN   NATURE.  159 

direct,  why  exhort,  why  promise,  an  already  wholly 
corrupt,  depraved,  disabled  being  ? 

But  how,  specially,  did  our  Lord  treat  and  regard 
human  nature  ?  When  his  disciples  rebuked  parents 
for  presuming  to  bring  "  little  children"  to  him  for  his 
blessing,  w^hat  did  he  say  ?  "  Suffer  little  children, 
and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven^^  ^^7?  before  that,  how  em- 
phatic had  been  his  words !  The  disciples  asked : 
"  Who  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ? 
And  Jesus  called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him 
in  the  midst  of  them,  and  said — 'Yerily  I  say  unto 
you,  except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little 
children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven! Whosoever  therefore  shall  humble  himself  as 
this  little  child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.'  "f  I  rather  think  our  blessed  Lord  knew  of 
what  he  thus  affirmed ;  and  with  what  glorious  force 
of  meaning  it  would  ring  on  the  ears  of  his  hearers, 
and  reach  the  unsophisticated  heart  of  humanity 
through  all  time.  St.  Paul,  too,  the  very  Apostle  who 
is  charged  with  portraying  human  nature  in  the  black- 
est possible  colors,  when  he  is  only  describing  the 
shocking  degeneracy  prevalent  in  portions  of  the  hea- 
then world,:j:  thus  exhorts  his  Corinthian  converts,  liv- 
ing in  the  midst  of  one  of  the  most  corrUjDt  communi- 
ties of  ancient  Greece — "  in  malice  be  ye  childrenj^  as 
though  that  were  the  last  thing  to  be  found  in  them,% 
The  ignorance  of  children  he  recognizes  —  "be  not 

*  Matt.  19  :  4;  Mark  10  :  14 ;  Luke  18  :  16.         f  Matt.  18  :  1-4. 
X  Rom.  1.  §  1  Cor.  14  :  20. 


160  HUMAN   NATURE, 

children  in  understanding ;  liowbeit  in  malice  be  ye 
children."  The  Apostle  clearly  thought  a  good  deal 
better  of  children,  than  that  they  were  totally  depraved 
or  born  in  sin. 

It  is  not,  indeed,  so  much  as  pretended  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Human  Nature  against  which  we  contend  is 
expressly  declared  in  Scripture,  but  rather  that  it  is  of- 
necessity  to  be  inferred  from  its  frequent  language. 
For  example  we  are  pointed  to  such  texts  as  this : 
"And  God  saw  that  the  loickedness  of  man  was  great  on 
the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts 
of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually."*  As  though 
this  were  a  description  of  Human  Nature,  instead  of 
human  character !  A¥here  is  the  first  hint  in  it  of  a 
corrupt  nature,  of  hereditary  total  guilt,  of  innate  aver- 
sion to  holiness  as  a  thing  born  in  man?  "Wicked- 
ness" there  was,  and  it  was  great;  but  the  very  word 
"  wickedness"  implies  something  very  different  from 
an  inherent  taint,  or  the  outbreak  of  positive  moral 
inability.  So  in  the  Psalms, f  when  David,  brought 
by  the  faithful  rebuke  of  God's  prophet  into  the  pro- 
foundest  penitence  for  his  outrageous  crimes,  gives 
vent  to  his  penitential  emotion  in  the  poetry  of  passion, 
we  are  called  upon  to  regard  him  at  the  very  time  as 
an  inspired  oracle  of  Divine  truth  deliberately  giving 
a  statement  of  it !  And  when  Jeremiah,  having  ex- 
pressed in  the  strongest  terms  the  wretchedness  of 
trusting  in  man,  and  the  blessedness  of  trusting  in 
God,  sets  forth  the  reason  in  this  emphatic  languageij: — 
"  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  despe- 

*  Gen.  6:5.  f  Ps.  51  :  5.  %  Jerem.  17  :  9. 


HUMAN   NATURE.  161 

rately  v^ricked" — we  are  bound  to  accept  tliis  as  a  lite- 
ral description  of  man  by  nature  !  Now  at  the  most, 
it  describes  a  too  common  characteristic  of  men ;  but 
nothing  is  hinted  as  to  its  origin ;  nor  does  it  follow 
that  however  common,  it  is  positively  universal.  Nay, 
the  contrary  inevitably  follows  from  the  very  next 
verse:  "I  the  Lord  search  the  heart — even  to  give 
every  man  according  to  Ms  ways,  and  according  to  the 
fruit  of  his  doings."  That  great  Apostle,  too,  to  whom 
I  referred  a  moment  ago,  cannot  be  suffered  to  quote 
the  poetic  and  hyperbolic  language  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  literary  as  well  as  sacred  treasure-house  of 
his  nation,  and  apply  it  for  illustrating  his  position  that 
the  Jewish  and  Heathen  or  Gentile  world  were  alike 
''  under  sin" — not  under  ^^  native  depravit'if^  either  par- 
tial or  total,  but  under  sin^  which  I  take  to  be  a  per- 
sonal and  not  an  inherited  or  imputed  matter — ^but  lo, 
we  must  receive  the  language  as  a  strict,  literal,  philo- 
sophical statement  in  regard  to  human  nature^  instead 
of  a  loose,  popular,  poetic  picture  of  human  character^ 
and  that  of  individuals  or  men  of  a  particular  era  l"^ 
Eefer  to  the  Psalms  from  which  the  Apostle  quotes, 
and  you  will  see,  that,  notwithstanding  the  Psalmist 
represents  God  as  finding  ^'■none  that  doeth  good,  no, 
not  one^^  he  still  finds  occasion  to  contrast  "  the  ^^or/i:e?•5 
of  iniquity"  with  "  my  people,"  i.  e.  God's  people ;  to 
speak  of  "the  generation  of  the  righteous";  of  "the 
poor"  whose  "refuge  is  the  Lord."  Is  it  not  plain, 
that  he  had  no  idea  of  being  understood  literally  in 
his  previous  words  ?     Just  as  Paul  hipiself,  when  he 

*  Rom.  3  :  10-18 ;  see  also  Ps.  14  and  53. 


162  HUMAN   NATURE. 

says  in  reference  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ — "  the  grace 
of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared  unto  all 
ffieiPb'' — or  when  he  spoke  of  it  as  "  preached  to  every 
creature^^ — doubtless  knew  and  felt  that  they  to  whom 
he  wrote  would  appreciate  the  proper  significance  of 
his  hyperbole ;  the  most  natural  mode  of  expression 
on  a  momentous  theme  to  the  Oriental  mind. 

But  this  way  of  citation  from  Scripture,  is  sometimes 
even  further  strained  to  make  out  a  case  for  our  breth- 
ren on  the  opposite  side  of  this  subject.  They  insist 
that  we  must  take  the  worst  characters  in  Scripture  his- 
tory"^ as  types  of  human  nature,  of  man  universall}^ ; 
characters  like  Pharaoh  or  Saul  or  Jeroboam  or  Ju- 
das as  individuals  ;  like  Sodom  or  Canaan  or  Jerusalem 
in  their  worst  days  as  communities.  Instances  and 
examples  of  marked  and  monstrous  wickedness,  by 
which  to  judge  the  nature  which  the  entire  race  of 
man  brings  into  the  world  !  Could  any  thing  be  more 
absurd  ?  Then  wo  must  pass  by  and  ignore  Moses, 
however  pious,  humane  and  meek,  and  think  only  of 
the  cruel  and  obstinate  monarch  of  Egypt ;  pass  by 
and  ignore  the  conscientious,  public-spirited,  unselfish, 
generous,  devout  Josiah,  and  think  only  of  the  ambi- 
tious, selfish,  unprincipled  Jeroboam ;  pass  by  and 
ignore  every  good  and  noble  quality  in  David,  and 
think  only  of  his  confessed  and  bitterly  repented, 
however  monstrous  crimes ;  nay,  pass  by  and  ignore 
the  gentle,  true,  and  Christ-like  John,  and  the  other 
ten,  who,  however  wavering  at  first,  were  to  the  last 
loj^al,  and  think  only  of  the  wretched  man  who  could 

*  Yid.  Dr.  Woods'  Letters  to  Unitarians,  pp.  38,  39. 


HUMAN   NATURE.  163 

for  a  paltry  sum  betray  to  Lis  enemies  and  to  a  cruel 
death,  the  Innocent,  nay,  "the  Holy  One  and  the  Jnst," 
his  Master  and  best  Friend !  Against  this  mode  of 
testing  Human  Kature,  that  nature  which  God  has 
given  US,  I  most  earnestly  protest.  It  is  a  libel  on 
the  Creator.  As  to  its  reasonableness,  we  might  as 
reasonably  test  the  health  of  a  community  by  going  to 
its  Hospitals  and  Lazar-houses,  and  singling  out  cases 
of  the  worst  possible  tj^pes  of  disease. 

Turning  now  to  the  Kew  Testament,  it  is  alleged 
that  the  doctrine  under  review,  is  of  necessity  implied 
by  our  Lord's  words  to  Nicodemus  :  "  Except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."* 
'Not  so,  for  the  universal  need  of  Eegeneration  is  en- 
tirely consistent  with  the  primitive  innocence  of  every 
man.  The  natural  birth  gives  no  moral  character ; 
that  is  to  be  formed ;  and  when  formed,  is  well  called 
a  new  birth.  The  necessity  of  a  new  or  spiritual  birth 
is  quite  as  conceivable  on  the  supposition  of  native 
purity  as  of  native  sinfulness,  of  original  innocence  as 
original  sin.  The  Saviour  meant  only  but  most  dis- 
tinctly to  declare,  that  by  natural  birth  we  do  not  pos- 
sess any  positive  moral  character ;  that  negatively  we 
are  by  nature  simply  innocent,  neither  good  nor  bad ; 
that  the  character  essential  to  his  disciple,  to  a  true 
Christian,  is  a  righteous  and  holy  character  which  must 
be  sought  and  achieved.  So,  too,  when  Paul  says, 
"All  have  sinned,"f  who  doubts  or  denies  that?  AH 
Jiave  sinned.  It  is  a  mere  assertion  of  a  fact;  but 
without  imputation  or  the  remotest  hint  of  hereditary 

*  John  3  :  3,  5.  f  Rom.  5  :  12. 


164  HUMAN   NATURE. 

guilt  or  original  sin.     Again,  lie  says  to  the  Ephesians: 

"  We were  bj  nature  cliilclren  of  wrath,  even 

as  others."*  "By  nature,"  or  more  according  with 
our  own  idiom,  "  naturally,"  i.  e.  by  the  condition  and 
circumstances  into  which  by  birth,  whether  as  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  they  were  introduced.  Yery  much  as  in 
another  place  Paul  says — "We,  who  are  Jews  hy  na- 
tiire^'  naturally  or  by  natural  birth,  "  and  not  sinners 
of  the  G-entiles."— "  Children  of  wrath,"  then  ?  These 
words  are  no  proof  of  hereditary  moral  corruption, 
either  total  or  partial.  They  have  no  reference  to  a 
natural  but  an  acquired  state;  to  no  corruption  of 
"nature,"  i.  e.  natural  constitution,  but  of  habits  and 
conduct.  Speaking  of  the  state  of  all  men,  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  previously  to  their  reception  of  Christianity, 
he  says  that  in  that  condition,  so  corrupt  were  they, 
they  were  "children  of/'  deserving  of,  "wrath."  By 
impurity,  licentiousness,  sin,  they  had  made  themselves 
such.  How  can  the  opposite  or  orthodox  view  of 
the  passage  be  reconciled  with  the  passage  in  Romans, 
where  the  same  Apostle  argues,  that  "  when  the  Gen- 
tiles, which  have  not  the  law,  do  hy  nature  the  things 
contained  in  the  law,  these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a 
law  unto  themselves ;  which  show  the  work  of  the 
law  written  in  their  hearts"  ?f  Could  a  nature  totally 
corrupt  prompt  its  possessor  to  "do  the  things  of  the 
law"  or  lawful  things  ?  Besides,  in  the  passage  spe- 
cially under  consideration,:]:  the  Apostle  proceeds  to 
compare  the  natural  condition  of  the  Ephesians,  with 
that  into  which  the  Gospel  had  brought  them.     In  that 

*  Chap.  2:3.  f  Eom.  2  :  14,  15.  %  Eplies.  2  :  3,  etc. 


HUMAN    NATURE.  165 

natural  state  they  were  ''dead  in  sin — without  Christ — 
aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  —  strangers 
from  the  covenants  of  promise  —  far  off — having  no 
hope — without  God  in  the  world — strangers  and  for- 
eigners." This  they  were  "by  nature,"  or,  in  their 
natural  condition.  But  "  by  grace,"  "  the  grace  of  God 
which  bringeth  salvation,"*  they  had  been  "  made 
nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ — quickened  together  with 
Christ — raised  up — made  to  sit  together  in  heavenly 
places  —  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the 
household  of  God."  He  says  nothing  of  their  corrup- 
tion or  depravity  of  nature  or  constitution  ;  but  seems 
to  have  thought  no  language  too  strong  to  express  the 
inestimable  advantages  they  now  enjoyed,  and  the  aw- 
ful degradation  from  which  they  had  been  delivered. 

I  have  now  examined  the  chief  Scriptural  author- 
ities, relied  on  for  the  support  of  those  views  on  this 
subject,  which  we  reject.  Among  them  all  there  is 
not  a  word  of  our  Lord  himself  except  what  he  said  to 
Mcodemus,  which  is  cited  therefor.  So  little  of  Scrip- 
ture is  there,  on  which  with  the  least  plausibility  to 
found  this  startling  doctrine  of  the  "corruption  of 
man's  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  dis- 
abled, and  made  opposite  unto  all  that  is  spiritually 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  conti- 
nually "  ;f  or,  according  to  the  Episcopal  "Articles  of 
Eeligion,"  which  teach  that  "  Original  sin  .  .  .  is  the 
fiiult  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man  .  .  . 
whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteous- 

*  Titus  2:  11. 

\  Assembly's  Larger  Cateeliism,  Ans.  to  Quest.  25. 


166  HUMAN   NATUEE. 

ness,  and  is  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  so  that 
the  flesh  lusteth  always  contrary  to  the  spirit;  and 
therefore  in  every  person  born  into  this  world,  it  de- 
serveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation."'^ 

But  not  only  is  it  unscriptural,  which  with  Unita- 
rians is  alone  an  all-sufficient  objection  to  it ;  it  is  utterly 
inconsistent  with  the  moral  character  of  the  Creator,  as 
unfolded  in  Scripture— a  perfectly  just  and  holy  and 
gracious  Being.  He  gave  us  our  nature,  be  it  what  it 
may.  It  is  of  no  moment  to  say,  that  the  depravity  of 
our  nature  consists  in  its  actual  corruption,  or  only  in 
inevitable,  tendencies  to  corruption ;  or  to  urge,  that 
our  disability  is  not  the  want  of  physical  or  natural 
abilit}^,  but  the  want  of  moral  ability ;  not  the  want 
of  power,  but  the  want  of  will ;  a  distinction  attempted 
by  the  modern  Calvinistic  school.  In  either  case  the 
depravity,  the  corruption,  is  inevitable  ;  and  therefore 
neither  censurable  nor  punishable  by  a  just  God. 
Guilt  implies  both  will  and  power,  both  moral  and  na- 
tural ability.  If  the  effectual  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  be  needed,  if  without  them  there  be  no  hope,  and 
if  in  any  case  they  be  withheld,  there  is  then  no  guilt 
on  the  part  of  man.  -If  "  some  men  are  predestinated 
unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to  ever- 
lasting death"  ;  if  the  one,  "  being  fallen  in  Adam  " 
like  all  the  rest,  are  nevertheless  "  effectually  called  unto 
faith  in  Christ,  by  His  (God's)  Spirit  working  in  due  sea- 
son ;"  and  "  the  rest  of  mankind,  God  is  pleased  .  .  . 
to  pass  by,  and  ordain  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for 
their  sin,"  it  is  worse  than  idle  to  talk  of  this  being 


*  Art. 


HUMAN   NATUKE.  167 

"  to  tlie  praise  of  His  glorious  justice" — ^it  is  mockery  !^ 
— God's  "  glorious  justice,"  indeed !  Who  implanted 
in  us  the  sentiment  of  justice  but  He  ?  The  most  ar- 
bitrary government  on  earth  would  be  execrated,  should 
it  thus  act,  thus  treat  its  subjects,  under  the  name  or 
pretence  of  that  sacred  attribute.  And  jet  men  have 
been  for  ages,  and  still  are  too  largely,  expected  to  ad- 
mire and  extol  in  the  Almighty,  wha,t  they  execrate 
and  denounce  in  their  own  race  ! 

The  doctrine  in  question  is  inconsistent  with  all  our 
natural,  human,  parental  feelings.  What  parent  who 
really  believed  it,  could  consistently  look  complacently 
even,  not  to  say  joyously  and  gratefully,  on  his  child? 
How  would  he  dread  to  think  of  himself  as  instru- 
mental in  giving  that  child  being !  Fortunately  for 
the  peace  of  parents,  few  really  believe — they  only 
imagine,  possibly  say — they  believe  it.  It  is  the  lan- 
guage of  their  Confession,  or  Catechism,  or  Creed,  and 
they  adopt  it.  The  doctrine,  moreover,  clashes  with 
all  virtuous  aspiration.  It  is  soul-crushing,  degrading, 
withering.  Were  all  men  in  fact  thus  depraved,  thus 
corrupt,  either  in  the  one  sense  or  in  the  other  above 
referred  to,  whence  all  the  undeniable  virtue,  all  the 
undeniable  goodness  in  the  world  ?  If  none  but  the 
regenerate  can  will  or  do  a  good  deed,  then  snrely  all 
are  already  regenerate  and  sanctified  ;  for  who  so  bad, 
so  depraved,  as  never  to  will  or  do  a  good  deed? 
Such  a  monster  in  human  shape  does  not  exist. 

To  account  for  the  origin  of  sin  in  man,  there  is  no 
need  of  going  beyond  the  obvious  facts  of  his  moral 

*  See  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faitli,  cliaps.  iii.  and  x. 


168  HUMAN   NATUEE. 

nature,  and  tlie  present  state  of  trial,  probation,  prepa- 
ration, in  which  lie  is  placed.  A  moral  nature  is  a  free 
nature ;  its  possessor  has  freedom  of  choice  and  will 
and  action  ;  and  trial  or  probation  can  alone  put  such 
a  being  or  such  a  nature  to  the  test.  Accordingly  we 
read  in  Scripture,  that  "  God  hath  made  men  upright, 
but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions." 

As  to  the  claim  so  often  made  for  orthodox  views 
of  human  nature,  that  they  are  essentially  humbling 
views,  and  thus  especially  tend  to  foster  that  great 
Christian  grace,  Humility,  while  those  which  we  hold 
tend  to  foster  Pride,  none  could  be  more  baseless.  "Which 
views  are  most  likely,  I  ask,  to  make  a  man  humble 
— those  which  teach  him,  that  his  sin  is  the  inevitable, 
inherent  growth  of  a  nature  from  the  start  depraved ; 
or  those  which  teach  him,  that  it  is  the  result  of  a  care- 
less or  wilful  perversion  or  corruption  of  a  nature  given 
to  us  innocent  and  pure?  The  former,  consistently 
held,  must  lessen  the  consciousness  of  personal  guilt,  or 
of  the  essential  evil  of  sin ;  but  the  latter  show  that 
evil  in  its  true  light ;  make  sin  the  moral  abuse  or  ne- 
glect of  great  faculties,  opportunities,  and  privileges, 
the  deliberate,  wilful  breach  of  the  commands  of  the 
best  of  beings,  our  God  and  Father ;  and  thus  stamp 
it  beyond  evasion  or  escape  with  an  enormity,  which 
must  humble  an  awakened  sinner  to  the  dust. 

Do  you  now  ask,  what,  explicitly  stated,  is  the  Uni- 
tarian view  of  Human  Nature — our  nature — at  birth 
and  in  infancy,  I  reply  in  our  Lord's  own  words :  "Of 
such  (little  children)  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  We 
believe — naj^,  we  hnow^  as  certainly  as  we  know  any 
"moral  fact,  and  because  we  know  that  God  is  a  per- 


HUMAN   NATUEE.  169 

fectly  just  as  well  as  gracious  Being — that  man  by  na- 
ture, man  as  born  and  brought  into  this  world,  is  inno- 
cent, pure  ;  guiltless  because  sinless ;  fitted  for  just 
that  religion  which  Christ  revealed  to  operate  success- 
fully and  gloriously  upon  ;  not  indeed  holy,  but  capa- 
ble of  becoming  so.  When  the  period  of  moral  re- 
sponsibleness  is  reached  and  entered — a  period  which 
with  exactness  is  known  in  any  supposed  case  only  to 
God — as  we  find  none  perfect,  the  character  becomes  a 
mixed  one,  in  part  good,  in  part  bad,  varying  in  count" 
less  varieties  of  shades  and  degrees.  In  every  case, 
however,  the  wickedness,  depravity,  sin  on  the  one 
hand,  or  the  goodness,  excellence,  virtue,  on  the  other, 
is  one's  own,  of  his  own  will,  of  his  own  purpose,  of 
his  own  act.  Personal  guilt,  personal  desert,  personal 
accountableness,  that  is,  were  else  out  of  the  question. 
Even  after  what  is  technically  called  "  the  Fall,"  it  is 
written  in  Genesis,^  that  ''  in  the  image  of  God  made 
He  man;" — in  the  Psalmsf  :  "Thou  hast  made  him 
(man)  a  little  lower  than  the  angels,  and  crowned  him 
with  glory  and  honor :"  and  by  Paul,  that  "  a  man 
.  .  .  .  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God.":|:  Yes 
Paul,  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  ;  who  is  so  often 
alleged  to  be  the  inspired  teacher  of  this  tremendous 
dogma  of  man's  innate  total  depravity  and  original  sin. 
Man,  then,  in  and  by  the  nature  which  God  has 
given  him,  is  a  being  of  glorious,  God-like  affections 
and  faculties  ;  and  hence  we  speak,  and  most  justly  and 
by  divine  warrant  as  we  confidently  believe,  of  the 
glory,  the  grandeur,  4he  dignity  of  tliat  nature.     None 

*  9:6.  t  8:5.  t  1  Cor.  11:  7. 


170  HUMAN   NATUEE. 

the  less  do  we  shut  our  eyes  to  the  appalling  feet  of 
man's  actual  and  great  depravity  and  sin.  Why,  that 
very  word  depravity^  on  its  face  implies  a  corruption, 
a  depravation  of  what  was  originally,  as  we  received  it 
at  the  hand  of  our  Maker,  pure ;  and  such  depravity, 
alas  1  we  every  where  see.  We  profoundly  feel  that 
sin  is  no  light  thing,  but  in  a  high  sense  the  greatest, 
most  real  and  fearful  evil  of  all.  We  acknowledge  as 
gratefully,  as  devoutly  as  any,  that  to  redeem  us  from 
sin,  Christ  "came  forth  from  the  Father  and  came  into 
the  world."  We  do  not  condemn  men  in  the  gross, 
nay,  we  do  not  condemn  all  notorious  sinners,  even, 
without  mercy,  for  God  does  not.  We  have  learned 
from  the  highest  authority  to  "judge  not" — at  least  not 
superficially  or  hastily.  To  the  All-Seeing  there  may 
appear  in  every — the  worst — case,  circumstances  of 
palliation,  of  extenuation,  which  we  cannot  see.  The 
convicted  pirate,  the  highway  robber,  the  midnight 
murderer,  the  worst  felon  in  your  prisons — how  hap- 
pens it  that  you  or  I  are  not  in  his  place  ?  How  many 
untoward  circumstances  and  influences — misdirected  or 
wretched  education,  early  bad  associates,  a  Godless 
home — circumstances  and  influences  which  you  or. I 
might  have  no  more  resisted  than  he,  drove  him  there  ? 
What  know  we,  as  a  thing  of  personal  experience,  of 
life  in  the  purlieus  of  these  great  cities,  with  its  home- 
lessness,  its  squalid  misery,  its  filth  and  noisomeness,  its 
haggard  and  reckless  vice,  its  mighty,  ceaseless  torrent 
of  evil  and  malignant  power  ?  Yet  even  there,  I  doubt 
not,  and  therefore  hesitate  not  to  say,  might  be  found 
some  goodness  ;  at  least  some  germ,  some  material, 
that  could  be  made  to  unfold  and  bear  fruit — some 


HUMAN   NATURE.  171 

spark,  faint,  and  well-nigh  dying,  that  could  be  kindled 
np — on  which  to  work.  The  sainted  Tuckerman,-  who 
inaugurated  our  blessed  "  Ministry-at-large"  in  Boston ; 
the  later  years  of  whose  life  and  labors  were  almost 
exclusively  given  to  the  poor,  the  outcast,  the  prisoner  ; 
when  his  hope  had  almost  gone,  as  he  reasoned  and  ap- 
pealed and  prayed  in  the  cell  and  the  ear  of  a  hardened 
felon,  found  the  ice  melt  and  the  iron  soften,  at  the 
spell  of  that  single  word — "  Mother"  ! 

I  conjure  you,  cherish  ever  a  high  rather  than  a  low 
view  of  your  nature.  Sin  is  not  the  normal  condition 
of  the  soul,  but  its  saddest  perversion  and  corruption. 
We  were  not  made  for  that,  but  to  be  holy ;  faithful 
doers  of  the  Divine  will ;  co-workers  with  God  and  with 
His  Christ.  What  significant  attestation  to  the  native 
innocence  and  native  rectitude  of  our  human  nature 
did  our  Lord  give,  when  he  described  so  strikingly  the 
prodigal  in  his  repentance,  as  "coming  to  himself"  ! 


LECTURE    YIII. 

THE  ATONEMENT. 

In  the  orthodox  catalogue  of  Christian  doctrines, 
that  of  the  Atonement  is  probably  regarded  by  most 
of  those  who  accept  it,  as  of  paramount  importance. 
I  have  found  it  not  unfrequently  the  case,  that  where 
the  hold  on  the  Tri-personal  Trinity  has  been  aban- 
doned, that  on  the  Atonement  remained  almost  as 
tenacious  as  ever,  notwithstanding  the  logical  cohesion 
of  parts  in  the  system  was  infallibly  broken.  I  should 
be  the  last  to  deny,  indeed,  that  the  questions  connect- 
ed with  the  discussion  of  this  doctrine,  are  among  the 
gravest  which  can  be  started;  or  that  it  is  at  all 
strange,  that  minds  trained  under  orthodox  influences 
should  so  reluctantly  reject  it,  or  even  admit  doubts  con- 
cerning it.  The  subject  properly  understood,  compre- 
hends, beyond  question,  the  very  essence  and  purpose 
of  the  Grospel.  But,  when  it  is  claimed  that  the  doc- 
trine, in  the  precise  form  held  by  any  of  the  orthodox, 
nay,  by  any  church  or  body  of  churches  in  Christen- 
dom, is  an  essential  doctrine ;  essential,  that  is,  to  a 
true  faith  in  Christ,  or  to  salvation,  that  we  at  once 
and  explicitly  deny.     It  is  an  arrogant  and  imper- 


THE  AT0NEME2sT.  173 

tinent  claim,  be  it  put  forth  by  whom  it  may.  It  is  a 
violation  of  tlie  Christian  "  law  of  liberty,"  the  right 
of  individual,  private  judgment,  against  which  we 
shall  alwaj^s  protest.  Besides,  were  it  in  either  sense 
essential,  it  should,  nay,  it  would  be  one  and  uniform ; 
there  would  be  no  difference  of  opinion  about  it,  no 
liability  to  err  in  the  way  of  imderstanding  it ;  it 
would  be  capable  of  being  so  stated,  that  no  mistake 
or  misapprehension  should  be  possible  to  any  honest, 
inquiring  mind. 

But  it  is  not  so.  On  the  contrary,  no  doctrine  is 
more  variously,  in  more  multiform  and  opposite  ways 
stated  and  expounded,  by  the  creeds  or  the  preachers 
or  the  writers  that  teach  it.  I  must  ask  your  patience 
while  I  give  you  some  proofs  of  this  position. 

The  thirty -first  "Article"  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
declares  that — "  the  offering  of  Christ  once  made,  is 
that  perfect  redemption,  propitiation,  and  satisfaction, 
for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both  original  and 
actual ;  and  there  is  none  other  satisfaction  for  sin,  but 
that  alone."  It  will  be  observed  that  neither  here,  nor 
throughout  the  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  in  any 
of  its  prescribed  forms,  does  the  word  Atonement  once 
occur ;  although  so  much  is  said  and  written  of  the 
doctrine  usually  called  by  that  name,  by  the  theolo- 
gians and  divines  of  that  church. — The  same  remark 
is  true  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  which 
in  the  4th  sect,  of  chap.  viii.  says :  "  This  office  (of  a 
mediator,  etc.)  the  Lord  Jesus  did  most  willingly  un- 
dertake ;  which,  that  he  might  discharge,  he  was  made 
under  the  law,  and  did  perfectly  fulfil  it ;  endured 
most  grievous  torments  immediately  in  his  soul ;  and 


1V4  THE  ATONEMENT. 

most  painful  sufferings  in  his  body ;  was  crucified  and 
died."  And  in  the  8d  sect,  of  chap.  ix.  says :  "Christ, 
by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  fully  discharge  the 
debt  of  all  those  that  are  justified,  and  did  make  a 
proper,  real,  and  full  satisfaction  to  his  Father's  justice 
in  their  behalf" 

Mr.  Wardlaw  says,  that  the  leading  object  of  Christ's 
mediation  was,  "  to  render  the  exercise  of  God's  mercy, 
in  bestowing  free  forgiveness,  consistent,  in  the  eyes  of 
his  intelligent  creatures,  with  the  claims  of  his  dishon- 
ored authority,  the  demands  of  his  justice,  the  glory 
of  his  holiness,  the  rectitude  of  his  moral  administra- 
tion, and  the  general  good  of  his  Universe."* 

Archbishop  Magee  says :  "  The  sacrifice  of  Christ 
was  never  deemed  by  any  who  did  not  wish  to  calum- 
niate the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  to  have  made  God 
placable,  but  merely  viewed  as  the  means  appointed 
by  the  Divine  Wisdom,  through  which  to  bestow  for- 
giveness." And  a  little  further  on  he  adds — "  the 
notion  of  the  efficiency  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  con- 
tained in  the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  stands  precisely 
on  the  same  foundation,  with  that  of  pure  intercession 
— ^merely  as  the  means,  whereby  God  has  thought  fit 
to  grant  his  favor  and  gracious  aid  to  repentant  sin- 
ners, and  fulfil  that  merciful  intention,  which  he  had 
at  all  times  entertained  towards  his  fallen  creatures,  "f 
Again,  he  saysj  he  uses  "  the  expression,  vicarious  im- 
port,  rather  than  vicarious,  to  avoid  furnishing  color  to 

*  Disc,  on  Socinianism,  p.  185. 

f  Magee  on  the  Atonement,  vol.  i.  pp.  18,  19. 

X  Ibid.  p.  268.     lUust.  No.  xxxviii. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  175 

tbe  idle  charge,  made  against  the  doctrine  of  Atone- 
ment, of  supposing  a  real  substitution  in  the  room  of 
the  offender,  a  literal  translation  of  his  guilt  and  pun- 
ishment to  the  immolated  victim ;  a  thing  utterly  incom- 
prehensible, as  neither  guilt  nor  punishment  can  be 
conceived,  but  with  reference  to  consciousness^  which 
cannot  be  transferred/'  Perhaps  no  writer  has  been 
more  lauded  or  quoted  by  the  orthodox  than  this  very 
one  ;  none  ever  expressed  himself  more  bitterly  than 
he  upon  Unitarianism,  and  in  this  identical  work  ;  and 
all  the  while,  he  here  sets  forth  his  own  views  in  a 
form,  which  he  ought  to  have  known  had  in  the  gen- 
eral statement  always  been  held  by  a  very  large  por- 
tion of  those  whom  he  condemned.  Indeed  Mr.  Sparks 
declares,  that  "  no  language  could  better  express  the 
general  faith  of  Unitarians."* 

Bishop  Butler  says  :  "  Christ  offered  himself  a  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice  and  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
the  world. — This  sacrifice  was  in  the  highest  degree, 
and  with  the  most  extensive  influence,  of  efficacy  in 
obtaining  pardon  of  sin.f 

Prof.  Stuart  maintains  that  Christ  "  suffered  as  our 
substitute  ;  or,  that  his  sufferings  and  death  were  an 
expiatory  offering  on  account  of  which  our  sins  are 
pardoned,  and  we  are  restored  to  the  divine  favor. "if 
But  Prof  Murdoch,  in  a  totally  different  strain,  says : 
"  The  Atonement  was  an  exhibition  or  display.  That 
is,  it  was  a  symbolical  transaction.     It  was  a  transaction 

*   Sparks'  Lett,  to  Miller,  p.  210.  f  Anal,  of  Rel.  p.  266. 

X  Discourses  on  the  xVtonement,  as  quoted  in  Unit.  Miscellany,  vol. 
vi.  p.  310. 


176  THE  ATONEMENT. 

in  wliicli  God  and  his  Son  were  tlie  actors ;  and  tliey 
acted  in  perfect  harmony,  though  performing  different 
parts  in  the  august  drama.  The  Son  in  particular, 
passed  voluntarily  through  various  scenes  of  humili- 
ation and  sorrow  and  suffering;  while  the  Father 
looked  on  with  all  that  tenderness  and  deep  concern, 
which  he — and  none  but  he — could  feel.  The  object 
of  both,  in  this  affecting  tragedy,  was  to  make  an  im- 
pression on  the  minds  of  rational  beings  every  where, 
and  to  the  end  of  time.  And  the  impression  to  be 
made,  was,  that  God  is  a  holy  and  righteous  God  ;  that 
while  inclined  to  mercy,  he  cannot  forget  the  demands 
of  justice,  and  the  danger  to  his  kingdom  from  the 
pardon  of  the  guilty ;  that  he  must  show  his  feelings 
on  this  subject ;  and  show  them  so  clearly  and  fully, 
that  all  his  rational  creatures  shall  feel  that  he  honors 
his  law  while  suspending  its  operation,  as  much  as  he 
would  by  the  execution  of  it."-)- 

Dr.  Woods,  having  insisted  that  much  of  the  lan- 
guage of  orthodox  writers  on  this  subject  is  highly 
figurative,  says  :  "  The  language,  taken  literally,  would 
impute  a  character  to  God  which  would  excite  uni- 
versal horror.  But  if  understood  according  to  the 
legitimate  principles  of  interpreting  metai^hors,  it 
teaches  the  simple,  but  all-important  truth,  that  the 
death  of  Christ  was  the  means  of  procuring  pardon,  or 
the  medium  through  which  salvation  is  granted.'"f 
Well  did  Dr.  Ware  rejoin :  "  Dr.  Woods  is  right  in 
supposing,  '  that  no  objection  will  lie  in  the  minds  of 

*  Quoted  in  Unit.  Miscellany,  vol.  v.  p.  196. 

\  Woods'  Letters  to  Unitarians,  1st  series,  p.  93. 


THE  ATONEMEXT.  177 

Unitarians,'  against  the  doctrine  thus  expressed.  It  is 
the  very  manner  of  expressing  the  influence  of  the 
Atonement,  which  has  been  adopted  by  Unitarian 
writers."* — Dr.  AYoods  also  admits  that,  "  A  literal  and 
exact  substitution  was  impossible  ;"f  and  yet  adds  that 
— "  The  object  of  the  death  of  Christ  is,  to  declare,  or 
manifest,  that  God  is  righteous,  and  that  in  the  salva- 
tion of  sinners  he  will  support  the  honors  of  his  law, 
and  'the  interests  of  virtue.'":}:  He  afterwards,  in 
words  but  a  single  remove  for  offensiveness  from  the 
dramatic  language  of  his  brother  Professor  of  Andover, 
speaks  of  it  as  an  ''''expedient  which  the  wisdom  of  God 
has  adopted,"  to  save  "the  authority  of  his  law."§  We 
are  apt  reverently  to  feel  that  the  Almighty  has  no 
need  of  adopting  "expedients,"  either  for  the  vindica- 
tion of  his  righteousness,  or  for  confirming  the  princi- 
ples of  his  moral  government. 

Accordant  as  is  Dr.  Woods'  statement  first  quoted 
above  with  the  views  of  Unitarians,  Dr.  Lyman 
Beecher's  is  also  quite  near  them.  He  says :  "That 
an  atonement  has  been  made  for  sin  by  Jesus  Christ ; 
with  reference  to  which  God  can  maintain  the  influence 
of  his  law  and  forgive  sin,  upon  condition  of  repent- 
ance towards  God  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
that  all  men  are  invited  sincerely  in  this  way  to  return 
to  God;  with  an  assurance  of  pardon  and  eternal  life  if 
they  comply."! 

*  Ware's  Letters  to  Trinitarians,  1st  series,  p.  86. 
f  As  above,  p.  101.  %  p.  102. 

§  Woods'  Letters  as  above,  pp.  102-3. 
■  II  Sermon  at  Worcester,  Mass.,  at  ordination  of  Mr.  Hoadly,  p.  4. 

8* 


178  THE  ATONEMENT. 

In  this  connection  take  some  of  the  statements  of  the 
Eeformers  and  the  older  divines.  Luther  says  :  "  Christ, 
according  to  the  (Mosaic)  law,  ought  to  be  hanged,  for 
he  sustained  the  person  of  a  sinner  and  of  a  thief,  not 
of  one,  but  of  all  sinners  and  thieves."  Again  :  "All 
the  prophets  did  forese'e  in  spirit  that  Christ  should  be- 
come the  greatest  transgressor,  murderer,  thief,  rebel 
and  blasphemer,  that  ever  was  or  could  be  in  all  the 
world."  Still  more,  he  supposes  Grod  to  say  to  Christ : 
"  Be  thou  the  person  which  hath  committed  the  sins 
of  all  men ;  see,  therefore,  that  thou  pay  and  satisfy 
for  them."*  Calvin,  however,  says:  "If  it  be  asked  how 
Christ  hath  done  away  our  sins,  and  taken  away  the 
strife  between  us  and  God,  and  purchased  such  right- 
eousness as  might  make  Him  favorable  and  well-dis- 
posed towards  us  ;  it  may  be  in  general  answered  that 
he  hath  brought  it  to  pass  hy  the  whole  course  of  his 
obedience."  Yet  he  does  not  hesitate  to  declare  that 
"  in  his  soul  Christ  suffered  the  torments  of  a  damned 
and  forsaken  man."  "It  was  requisite,  also,"  he  adds, 
"  that  he  should  feel  the  severity  of  the  divine  ven- 
geance, in  order  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God^  and  satisfy 
his  justice.  Hence  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  contend 
with  the  powers  of  hell  and  eternal  death."  He  speaks, 
nevertheless,  of  God's  "  appeasing  Himself  through  the 
blood  of  the  Cross,"  while  he  says  that  "  the  burden 
of  damnation,  from  which  we  were  delivered,  was  laid 
upon  Christ."f  Eichard  Baxter  says  :  "  Christ  did 
give  his  satisfaction  directly  and  strictly,  not  to  man, 

*  As  quoted  by  Rd.  Wright,  Anti-SatisfacUonist,  p.  26. 

f  Institutes.     B.  2,  ch.  16,  §  5  and  §  10;  ch.  15,  §  4  and  §  6. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  1^9 

for  whom  tie  suffered,  but  to  God  wliom  he  satisfied." 
And  :  "  Christ's  death  is  a  sufficient  price  and  satisfac- 
tion to  God  for  the  sins  of  all  mankind.""^  So  Bishop 
Beveridge,  referring  to  the  death  of  Christ,  says:  "I 
believe  it  was  not  only  as  much,  but  infinitely  more 
satisfactory  to  divine  justice,  than  though  I  should 
have  died  to  eternity  ;  for  by  that  means  justice  is  ac- 
tually and  perfectly  satisfied  already."f  President  Ed- 
wards says  that  by  the  death  of  Christ  "all  was  fin- 
ished that  was  required  in  order  to  satisfy  the  threaten- 
ings  of  the  law,  and  all  that  was  necessary  in  order  to 
satisfy  divine  justice."  Doubtless,  if  any  thing  was 
required,  if  any  thing  was  necessary  for  the  one  or  the 
other  purpose.  But  he  adds  :  ''  Then  the  utmost  that 
vindictive  justice  demanded,  even  the  whole  debt  was 
paid,":j:  That  is  quite  another  thing  ;  for  we  deny 
that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  vindictive  justice  in 
God's  nature  or  government.  Finally,  notorious  as  it 
is  that  the  pious  Watts  long  before  his  death  would 
have  been  glad  to  alter  many  of  his  Hymns  had  he 
retained  the  copyright,  those  Hymns  are  to  be  taken, 
not  only  as  expressing  their  author's  views  when  he 
wrote  them,  but  those  of  the  churches  which  continue 
to  use  them.     There  we  read  : 

"  Well,  the  Redeemer's  gone 

To  appear  before  our  God, 
To  sprinkle  o'er  the  flaming  throne, 

With  his  atoning  blood. 
Once  'twas  a  seat  of  dreadful  wrath, 

And  shot  devouring  flame  ; 

*  TTniversal  Redemption,  pp.  50,  §  60. 

f  Thoughts,  p.  44.  %  Hist,  of  Redemption,  p.  108. 


180  THE  ATOXEMENT. 

Our  God  appear'd  consuming  fire, 

And  vengeance  was  his  name. 
Rich  -were  the  drops  of  Jesus'  blood 

That  calm'd  His  frowning  face, 
That  spi'inkled  o'er  the  burning  throne, 

And  turn'd  the  wrath  to  grace." 

I  need  not,  I  trust,  remark  upon  the  liorrible  picture 
which  such  language  gives  of  that  all-blessed  Being 
whom  our  Lord  reveals  as  the  Father  ;  but  surely,  in 
view  of  the  vast  variety  of  statements  upon  this  sub- 
ject by  different  minds,  we  may  reasonably  ask,  yes, 
quite  as  pertinently  as  in  regard  to  the  Trinity — which 
of  all  is  the  true  statement  ?  Which  of  all,  par  excel- 
lence^ is  the  orthodox  statement  ?  And,  since  it  is  an 
"essential"  point  of  which  we  inquire — which  of  all 
the  self-styled  orthodox  doctors  or  churches,  is  author- 
ized to  give  us  fall  assurance  of  what  is  the  absolute 
truth  regarding  it  ? 

The  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  in  the 
Christian  Church  shows  plainly  three  distinct  periods 
in  its  developments,  each  with  its  prevailing^  and  there- 
fore for  the  time,  orthodox  theory.*  In  the  first,  extend- 
ing to  the  eleventh  centurj^,  the  prominent  or  leading 
idea  is  warlike.  There  was  a  conflict  between  the 
great  principles  of  good  and  evil,  and  Christ's  death 
was  held  to  have  been  the  ransom  paid  to  the  devil  for 
man's  redemption.    To  be  sure  the  death  of  Christ  was 

*  I  had  in  mind  here  the  anecdote  of  the  Quaker  preacher  in  Lon- 
don. "  Friends,"  said  he,  "  I  have  been  thinking  of  a  definition  of  the 
word  Orthodox.''''  After  a  pause  lie  stated  it  to  be — "  Uppermost.'^  W!I1 
any  doubt  the  justness  of  the  definition,  when  he  thinks  of  what  is  Or- 
thodoxy at  Rome,  at  St.  Petersburgh,  at  London,  at  New-York  ? 


THE  ATOXEMEXT.  181 

also  represented  as  an  actual  victory  over  tlie  devil ; 
and  Origen  even  talks  of  the  devil  being  outwitted.^ 
In  the  second  period,  thence  to  the  Keformation,  the 
leading  idea  is  legal.  The  sinner  owes  a  debt  to  God, 
and  Christ  paid  it.  In  the  third,  thenceforth  to  our 
day,  the  leading  idea  is  governmental.  There  could 
be  no  forgiveness  of  sin  consistently  with  the  honor 
and  integrity  of  the  Divine  Grovernment,  except  by 
the  amplest  vindication  of  God's  violated  authority. 
There  must  be,  at  least,  such  a  display  of  God's  indig- 
nation against,  or  abhorrence  of  sin  as  the  breach  of 
His  law,  as  will  prevent  the  fatal  consequences  which 
might  otherwise  ensue.  Christ  vindicated  God's  au- 
thority, he  made  the  required  display  of  the  divine 
displeasure  by  dying  on  the  Cross.  To  each  and  all 
of  these  theories  one  great  idea  is  common — satisfaction. 
In  the  first  the  claims  of  the  devil  are  discharged.  In 
the  second,  the  rights  and  honor  of  God  are  main- 
tained. In  the  third,  the  order  of  God's  universe,  and 
the  integrity  of  His  moral  government,  saved  and 
secured. 

Or  we  may  take  another  view  of  the  matter,  and 
find  four  various  schem.es,  which  are  or  have  been  held 
by  the  orthodox  upon  the  nature  of  the  atonement. 
The  first  is  specifically  that  of  Satisfaction.  By  the 
sacrifices,  sufferings,  and  death  of  our  Lord,  he  satis- 
fied the  justice,  while  he  appeased  the  wrath  of  God. 
He  gave  his  own  blood  as  the  great  price  of  our  recon- 
ciliation to  the  Father,  and  discharged  the  infinite  debt 
in  which  the  race  was  involved  by  sin.     The  second  is 

*  Hagenbacli's  Hist,  of  Doctr.  i.  189. 


182  THE  ATONEMENT. 

that  of  Substitution.  Christ,  according  to  this  view, 
suffered  as  the  substitute  for,  in  the  place  of  sinners, 
taking  upon  himself  the  whole  burden  of  the  suffering 
due  them  ;  and  thus  his  sufferings  and  death  were  the 
penalty  he  literally  endured,  by  as  literally  taking  upon 
himself  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Analyse  these  two 
schemes  carefully,  and  they  are  seen  to  be  essentially  but 
one.  The  third  is  that  of  Exhibition.  According  to 
this,  God,  in  the  sufferings  and  death  of  his  Son,  mani- 
fests his  hatred  of  sin,  his  love  of  holiness,  his  regard 
for  the  integrity  of  his  Government.  There  is  the 
fourth,  which  has  been  and  probably  still  is  held  by 
many  Unitarians,  according  to  which  the  death  of 
Christ  is  a  means — not,  indeed,  defined — employed  in 
the  good  pleasure  and  wisdom  of  God  to  bring  sinners 
into  that  state  of  freedom  and  deliverance  from  sin, 
which  will  at  the  same  time  make  it  consistent  with 
Perfect  Justice  and  Holiness  to  forgive  and  save  them. 
Kow,  we  at  once  object  to  the  first  of  these  schemes, 
that  if  the  debt  has  been  satisfied  and  paid,  no  place  is 
left  for  God's  mercy  to  act.  To  talk  of  mercy  in  for- 
giving, or  cancelling  a  debt,  which  does  not  exisu  a 
moment  after  it  is  paid  and  discharged,  is  simply  ab- 
surd. To  the  second,  that  to  make  the  innocent  suffer  in 
the  place  or  stead  of  the  guilty,  is  contrary  to,  impugns, 
the  Divine  Justice.  It  is  idle  to  allege,  that  we  cannot 
understand  the  Justice  of  God,  since  Justice  is  and 
must  be  ever  the  same  in  its  nature,  be  it  predicated 
of  God,  or  of  man.  His  creature  and  child.  By  no  such 
allegation  can  any  such  mere  hypothesis  be  maintained, 
especially  at  the  risk  of  conflict  between  any  of  the 
essential  attributes  of  the  All-perfect  One.    To  the  third 


THE  ATOXEMEXT.  183 

sclieme,  we  object  that  it  is  the  merest  shadow  or  sham, 
and  seems  too  much  like  trifling  with  a  most  serious 
subject.  Of  the  fourth — that  which  makes  the  death 
of  Christ  an  undefined  means  of  our  salvation — I  have 
now  only  to  say,  that  it  well  avoids  the  positive  errors 
of  the  others,  and  may  be  all  that  a  man  is  able  satis- 
factorily to  learn  from  the  Scripture  on  this  subject. 
Tt  is,  moreover,  so  much  more  rational,  so  much  more 
in  accordance  with  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  so 
harmonious  with  all  our  conceptions  of  God  derived 
thence,  that  its  influence  on  the  heart  and  the  life  of 
the  believer,  must  be  good.  It  has  beyond  doubt  a 
broad  basis  of  truth,  on  which  to  stand  ;  and  need  not 
be  unlearned,  even  if  we  are  able  to  press  on  to  clearer 
and  more  definite  views. 

As  I  approach  the  examination  of  the  Scripture  ar- 
gument, I  rejoice  to  acknowledge,  that  the  field  of  con- 
troversy on  this  great  subject  has,  of  late  years,  been 
narrowed  by  orthodox  concessions  and  admissions.  It 
was  once  common  in  orthodox  books  and  pulpits,  to 
say,  that  Christ  died  to  appease  Grod's  anger — to  de- 
liver the  sinner  from  his  vengeance — to  quench  his 
wrath — to  change  his  wrath  into  grace — to  strip  the 
throne  of  Heaven  of  its  terrors : — and  to  insist  that  his 
death  was  the  only  ^aj  possible,  even  to  God,  for  the 
pardon  of  human  sin,  and  to  secure  man's  salvation. 
But  now  it  is  widely  conceded,  that  such  language  is 
to  be  understood  metaphorically,  since  as  Dr.  Woods 
admits  :  "  Taken  literally,  it  wQuld  impute  a  character 
to  God  which  would  excite  universal  horror."*     The 

*  Lett,  to  Unitarians,  1st  Ser.  p.  86,  etc.     Sec  also  D wight's  Theol. 
vol.  ii.  p.  412. 


184  THE  ATONEMENT. 

same,  it  is  largely  agreed,  must  be  said  of  all  those 
Scriptural  expressions,  wliich  attribute  fierce  anger, 
indignation,  wratli,  vengeance,  to  God  ;  or  wliicli  speak 
of  ransom,  redemption,  purcliase,  in  reference  to  Christ's 
sufferings  and  death.  Archbishop  Magee  denies,  that 
it  is  any  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
"  that  men  could  not  have  been  forgiven,  unless  Christ 
had  suffered  to  purchase  their  forgiveness" ;  and  ar- 
gues at  length,  that  the  only  necessity  in  the  case  was 
"a  moral  necessity,  or  in  other  words,  a  fitness  and  pro- 
priety."* The  profound  Bishop  Butler  evidently  held 
a  similar  view.f  In  like  manner  I  understand  a  writer 
in  the  New-Englander^  when  he  says:  "Whether  this 
necessity  consists  in  the  indispensableness  of  his  (Christ's) 
death  as  a  means  of  ransoming  mankind  from  Satan, 
or  of  appeasing  divine  anger,  or  of  maintaining  the 
authority  of  the  Law-giver,  while  the  penitent  is  par- 
doned, or  in  some  other  principle^  orthodoxy  requires 
only  that  we  should  believe  in  the  necessity,  and  ascribe 
to  Christ's  death  our  salvation  and  the  glory  of  it."  He 
had  just  before  said  :  "  All  that  is  essential  to  ortho- 
doxy, in  respect  to  the  vital  doctrine  of  atonement,  is 
that  we  should  ascribe  the  salvation  of  man  to  some- 
thing which  Christ  has  accomplished  by  his  incarnation 
and  sufferings,  and  without  which  salvation  would  be 
impossible"  ;  and  he  adds  :  "  It  is  tlie  doctrine^  and  not 
philosophical  explanations^  in  which  our  faith  is  to  be 
reposed. ":j:  Precisely ;  but  still  it  remains  true,  and 
causes  our  chief  quarre]  with  orthodoxy  on  this  great 

*  On  the  Atonement,  vol.  i.  p.  143,  etc. 

f  Analogy,  part  ii.  cliap.  v.  p,  262,  note,  New-York  ed.  1843. 

\  Nsiv-Englander,  vol.  iii.  p.  561. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  185 

topic,  that  in  general  it  insists,  in  one  or  another  form 
of  statement,  upon  an  absolute  necessity  on  tlie  part  of 
God,  that  Christ  should  have  suffered  and  died,  before 
He  could  forgive  and  save  us  ;  in  one  or  another  form 
of  statement,  upon  what  is  known  as  the  "govern- 
mental" scheme  or  theory;  and  therefore  sift  and  ana- 
lyse it  as  you  may,  it  still,  logically  and  inevitably, 
though  directly  in  the  face  of  all  Scripture,  as  I  hope 
to  make  plain,  insists  upon  the  efficacy  of  Christ's 
death  with  or  upon  God,  and  not  with  or  upon  man. 
Hence  we  still  read  such  language  as  this  :  "  Man  (as 
a  sinner)  does  need  to  see  God  undertake  for  him.  In 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  he  sees  this.  .  .  . 
There  is  no  place  (for  him)  to  flee  to,  except  in  this  new 
and  strange  ( ! )  work  of  an  atoning  God.  God  himself 
must  do  something  which  shall  wear  the  signet  of  his 
own  high  authorit}^.  He  must  step  forth  from  behind 
the  curtains  of  eternity,  and  in  this  world  of  sin  must 
write  somewhere  the  demonstration  of  a  satisfied  law, 
and  a  satisfied  God.  .  .  .  When  the  sinner  sees  Jesus 
Christ  undertaking  for  him,  standing  in  the  sinner's 
own  nature,  and  the  sinner's  own  place,  arraigned  as 
his  surety,  held  as  his  surety,  dying  as  his  surety ; 
never  giving  back  till  he  has  met  the  very  last  item, 
and  going  down  into  the  grave  to  sanctify  and  sweeten 
that  last  trial-spot  of  the  believer ;  and  when  in  the 
opened  portals  of  the  tomb,  and  in  the  ascension-track 
of  the  Kedeemer  from  Olivet  to  glory,  he  sees  the  evi- 
dence of  QocVs  pacification.  .  .  in  this  new  and  strange 
work  of  God,  he  finds  some  foothold  for  conscience  to 
stand  upon.  It  is  just  this:  Christ  has  become  ac- 
countable for  him ;  Christ  has  met  the  blow  prepared 


186  THE  ATONEMENT. 

for  Lis  head  ;  Clirist  lias  died  for  liim  ;  Deity  has  grap- 
pled with  death  and  the  devil ;  tlie  tomb  has  owned  a 
conqueror ;  and  away  up  by  the  throne  of  God  bursts 
the  exclamations  of  angels,  '  Lift  up  your  heads,  O  ye 
gates  !  even  lift  them  up,  ye  everlasting  doors,  and  the 
King  of  glory  shall  come  in.'  "^*  In  such  kind  of  rhet- 
oric will  orthodoxy  even  now  indulge,  all  unscriptural, 
as  it  is.  Unitarians  feel  that  here,  then,  is  the  vital, 
cardinal  point ;  that  on  this  alleged  necessity  really 
turns  the  controversy..  They  feel,  that  Scripture  must 
be  abandoned  or  ignored,  if  the  orthodox  view  in  this 
respect  be  received. 

Still  the  appeal  to  actual  observation  of  the  pulpit 
would  show  on  the  whole  a  vast  change,  or  modifica- 
tion at  least,  of  the  views  and  statements  of  ortho- 
dox preachers  of  our  day  as  compared  with  the  days 
of  the  New-England  Fathers ;  or  indeed,  of  the  di- 
vines who  either  in  New-England  or  New- York  were 
eminent  only  fifty  years  ago.  Most  pertinently  does 
Dr.  Ellis  ask — "  Would  Cotton,  Hooker,  Shepherd, 
Edwards,  or  Hopkins  have  admitted  with  Dr.  E. 
Beecher,  that  the  system  of  Orthodoxy  is  utterly  in- 
consistent with  the  principles  of  honor  and  justice  in 
the  Divine  government?  Or  with  Professor  Park, 
that  the  rhetoric  of  Orthodoxy  needs  to  be  torn  down, 
if  one  would  harmonize  it  with  logical  truth  ?  Or  vrith 
Dr.  Bushnell,  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  a  dramatic 
scene,  in  which  we  must  discriminate  between  the  sub- 
jective and  the  objective  meaning?  Ask  the  aged 
persons  among  us  who  used  to  listen  to  Orthodox 

*  Biblical  Repository  for  October,  1846,  pp.  576,  579. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  187 

preaching,  if  its  tone,  and  even  its  substance,  are  not 
changed/ ''^  And,  we  may  add,  is  it  as  common  as  once 
to  say,  as  Dr.  Woods  did  in  his  Letters  to  Unitarians, 
"  that  we  must  rely  upon  Christ's  atoning  blood,  as  the 
sole  ground  of  forgiveness?"  Is  it  not  getting  to  be 
more  common  to  recognize  the  Hfe,  the  example,  the 
teachings,  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  as  part  and 
parcel  of  his  redeeming  work  ? 

Not  only,  then,  has  the  controversy  as  between  Or- 
thodoxy and  Unitarianism  as  to  the  Atonement  been 
much  narrowed,  but  there  is  a  broad  platform  of  uni- 
versal consent,  on  which  all  believers  in  the  Gospel  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  can  stand  together.  Among 
them  all,  of  every  denominational  name,  there  is  no 
dispute  as  to  his  Divine  mission,  office,  and  authority ; 
no  question  whether  he  be  the  divinely-appointed  me- 
diator between  God  and  man ;  whether  man  as  a  sinner 
needed  such  an  interposition ;  whether  Christ's  suffer- 
ings and  cross  were  endured  for  our  salvation ;  whether 
Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures ; 
whether  there  be  any  other  name  under  heaven  given 
whereby  we  must  be  saved ;  whether  he  be  not  an 
all-sufficient  Saviour,  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost 
them  that  come  unto  God  by  him.  On  all  these  and 
many  other  points,  the  entire  Christian  world,  Roman- 
ist, Greek,  Protestant,  Trinitarian,  and  Unitarian,  is, 
and  always  was  agreed. 

And  when  we  think  only  of  the  Protestant  portion 
of  Christendom,  with  very  few  and  insignificant  ex- 

*  Half-Century  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy,  by  Rev.  Geo.  E.  Elli?, 
D.D.,  p.  162. 


188  THE  ATONEMENT. 

ceptions  there  is  tiniversal  agreement  that  upon  the 
present  point  of  dispute,  nay,  upon  every  point  of 
Christian  doctrine,  the  ultimate  appeal  is,  not  to  decrees 
of  Councils  or  Synods,  not  to  creeds  of  man's  device  of 
however  high  antiquity,  but  to  the  Scriptures  only,  the 
recorded  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

Before,  however,  going  to  the  Scriptures  in  the  pre- 
sent argument,  it  seems  proper  briefly  to  advert  to  the 
subject  of  Sacrifice ;  especially  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment economy. 

And  in  the  first  place,  sacrifices  are  clearly,  I  think, 
of  human  origin.  At  least,  I  can  find  no  evidence  that 
they  had  at  first  Divine  appointment,  or  were  indeed 
anything  more  than  natural  expressions  of  the  human 
heart ;  self-imposed  offerings  to  the  deity  worshipped, 
in  order  to  avert  his  anger  or  propitiate  his  favor. 
Those  of  the  Mosaic  religion  were  purely  and  exactly 
ritual;  and  they  were  neither  expiatory  of  sin,  nor 
substitutes  for  punishment,  excepting  in  a  civil  or  po- 
litical sense.  They  were  symbolical  as  acts  of  faith 
and  worship ;  expressive,  as  the  case  might  be,  either 
of  confession,  or  supplication,  or  thanksgiving.  Ob- 
viously, too,  their  whole  value  in  the  sight  of  God, 
their  whole  efS.cacy  as  regarded  the  worshipper,  de- 
pended entirely  upon  the  temper  of  mind  or  heart  in 
v/hich  the  offering  was  made.  Let  any  reader  of  the 
Scriptures  turn  to  the  first  chapter  of  the  prophet 
Isaiah,  and  read  from  the  eleventh  to  the  eighteenth 
verses  inclusive,  and  he  will  have  ample  confirmation 
of  this  last  position. 

I  must  defer  the  Scriptural  argument  to  another 


THE  ATONEMENT.  189 

Lecture.  In  some  sense,  all  Christian  believers  hold 
to  the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  to  the  fact  of  Atone- 
ment by  Christ.  "  'Now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world 
Christ  appeared,  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself."*  This  none  deny.  This,  of  course,  Unita- 
rians do  not  deny.  It  is  not,  then,  the  doctrine,  but 
the  statements  of  the  doctrine,  and  the  explanations 
of  the  doctrine  upon  which  the  Orthodox  insist, 
from  which  we  dissent.  Indeed  we  may  take  the 
fact  of  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  as  many  do, 
without  being  able  or  even  attemjDting  to  explain  it. 
"How,  and  in  what  particular  way,"  says  Butlerf — • 
and  few  more  acute  and  profound  as  well  as  candid 
and  liberal  minds  ever  existed  than  that  great  Bishop 
— "it  had  this  efficacy,  there  are  not  wanting  per- 
sons who  have  endeavored  to  explain ;  but  I  do  not 

find  that  the  Scripture  has  explained  it And 

if  the  Scripture  has,  as  surely  it  has,  left  this  matter  of 
the  satisfaction  of  Christ  mysterious,  left  somewhat  in 
it  unrevealed,  all  conjectures  about  it  must  be,  if  not 
evidently  absurd,  yet  at  least  uncertain.  Nor  has  any 
one  reason  to  complain  for  want  of  further  information, 
unless  he  can  show  his  claim  to  it." 

But  holding  to  the  Atonement  as  we  find  it  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  hearing  on  all  sides  from  the  Orthodox 
the  persistent  assertion  of  the  indispensableness  of 
faith  in  it  as  they  hold  and  expound  it,  I  cannot  close 
without  a  word  more,  and  that  of  caution.  On  the 
most  orthodox  showing,  the  Atonement  of  Christ,  not- 
withstanding all  that  is  said  of  Salvation  by  Faith,  is 

*  Heb.  9  :  26.  \  Analogy,  pt.  ii,  chap.  5,  p.  267. 


190  THE  ATONEMENl'. 

of  no  manner  of  avail,  irrespective  of  personal  riglit- 
eonsness  of  heart  and  life.  Admit  human  obedience, 
human  goodness  to  be  ever  so  imperfect.  Count 
"  good  works" — those  "  good  works,"  which  Christ 
and  his  inspired  Apostles  expressly  enjoined  and  in- 
sisted upon,  and  therefore  not  only  "good"  but  meri- 
torious, aye,  meritorious  in  the  sight  of  God — count 
them,  if  you  dare,  to  be  the  "  filthy  rags"  they  have 
been  sometimes  styled,  and  by  those  who  should  know 
better ;  they  are,  still,  essential  things — absolutely,  posi- 
tively essential.  They  will  be  found  essential,  if  not 
before,  in  that  day  when  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  shall 
be  revealed,  as  surely  as  Scripture  records  the  word  of 
God  and  is  therefore  true. 


LECTURE  IX. 

ATONEMENT  —  CONCLUDED. 

The  great  question,  tlien,  upon  tliis  subject,  as  be- 
tween the  orthodox  and  ourselves,  is  this :  Is  the 
popular  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  whether  in  the 
form  of  satisfaction,  or  exhibition,  or  any  other  in 
which  it  is  stated — ^for,  anomalous  as  it  may  seem,  this 
essential  doctrine  is  held  in  so  many  and  such  various 
forms,  as  to  leave  the  inquirer  entirely  in  the  dark  as 
to  which  is  preeminently  the  orthodox,  the  orthodox 
of  the  orthodox  form — ^is  it  Scripturally  true  ?  Unit- 
arianism  answers  by  a  positive  denial.  Such,  it  de- 
clares, is  not  the  doctrine  of  Scripture.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  entire  doctrine  as  thus  variously  held  by  the 
orthodox,  in  just  its  jDQCuliarities,  or  where  it  differs 
from  the  Unitarian  view,  is  based  on  a  misuse  or  false 
interpretation  of  Scripture.  In  the  first  place,  as  we 
have  seen,  distinguished  orthodox  writers  agree  with 
ns  that  the  whole  class  of  words  like  ransom,  redeem, 
purchase,  is  used  in  the  Scripture,  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament especially,  in  a  figurative  sense,  and  is  to  be  so 
interpreted.  Again,  as  is  also  admitted  by  some  of  our 
modern  opponents,  the  word  "  wrath,"  i.  e.  of  God,  is  to 
be  understood  and  interpreted  on  the  same  princijDie. 
Thus  understood,  the  Scriptures  do  not  by  one  solitary 
instance  warrant  the  monstrous  idea,  that  Christ  died 
to  appease  the  wrath  of  God  in  any  sense.     Only  a 


192  THE  atoxem:ent. 

single  text  even  looks  like  it,  namely  :  "  We  shall  be 
saved  from  wrath  throngli  him."*  But  this  is  not  to 
be  understood  as  though  it  were  literally  the  wrath  of 
God,  like  the  angry  and  revengeful  passion  of  man, 
in  very  deed  enkindled  and  ready  to  fall  upon  the  sin- 
ner, from  which  we  shall  be  saved ;  but  rather  from 
the  consequences  of  unrepented  sin,  the  divine  judg- 
ments upon  the  wicked  and  impenitent.  Again  in  our 
English  version,  Christ  is  said  in  one  place  to  have 
been  set  forth  as  "a  propitiation"  ;f  but  in  another,:]: 
the  same  word  is  rendered  "  mercy-seat,"  as  it  should 
have  been  in  the  first.§  Christ,  in  whom  God  mani- 
fested himself  and  declared  his  gracious  will,  is  to  us 
the  "  mercy-seat" ;  as  that  of  old  in  the  Jewish  wor- 
ship was  the  place  of  God's  manifested  presence  and 
favor  to  Israel.  But  in  two  other  places  where  the 
English  word  "propitiation"  occurs,]  it  is  a  different 
word  in  the  original,  and  should  have  been  rendered 
"  propitiatory  sacrifice."  Christ  in  a  somewhat  loose 
sense,  was  such  a  sacrifice — but  the  sacrifice  was  made 
for  our  sakes,  to  reconcile  us  to  God,  not  God  to  us. 
The  object  could  not  be  to  reconcile  Him  or  render 
Him  propitious  or  merciful ;  for  both  of  these  He 
always  was,  and,  from  His  essential  nature  as  the  Fa- 
ther All-Perfect,  must  be  ;  but  to  quicken  our  repent- 

*  Rom.  5  :  9.  Vid.  Robinson's  Lex.  of  N.  T.  verb.  'Ogyn.  Schleus- 
ner,  ibid. — Archbishop  Newcome  renders  the  word  in  his  text  anger ; 
but  in  his  note  explains — "We  shall  be  finally  saved  through  him  from 
pimishmeyit" 

f  Rom.  3  :  25.  %  Heb.  9  :  .5. 

§  Bishop  Marsh,  Ernesti,  Adam  Clark,  so  render  it  in  Rom,.  3  :  25  ; 
and  Dr.  Wardlaw  prefers  this  rendering.  See  for  illustration,  Exodus 
•25  :  17-23.  Ij  1  John  2:2;   4  :  10. 


THE  ATOXEMEXT.  193 

ance  and  obedience,  by  assuring  ns  of  the  certainty  of 
the  divine  forgiveness.  "  It  appears  to  me  most  prob- 
able," says  Dr.  Carpenter,  "  that  when  the  Apostle 
says  that  Jesus  was  a  propitiation  or  reconciliation 
concerning  our  sins,  he  refers  to  all  which  Jesus  did 
and  suffered  in  order  to  render  men  fit  objects  for  the 
divine  mercy."*  Again :  never  is  it  said  or  counte- 
nanced in  the  Scriptures,  that  any  thing  which  Christ 
did  or  suffered,  caused  or  excited  the  grace  or  favor, 
or  mercy  of  God ;  though  in  great  variety  and  amount 
of  expression,  they  assure  us  that  Christ's  coming,  and 
suffering,  and  dying,  was  all  of  God's  free  grace,  of 
His  great  love  and  kindness  towards  us.f  Never  is  it 
said  that  God  is,  or  was  to  be,  reconciled  to  us,  as  has 
been  and  is  the  too  common  representation  in  orthodox 
pulpits  and  writings ;  but  always  that  we  are  recon- 
ciled to  Him,  by  Jesus  Christ.:]:  Yet  once  more 
Christ  is  said  to  have  "died  for  us,"  "suffered  for 
us";§  but  how  manifestly  as  the  chief  expression  of 
the  love  of  God  to  our  race,  or  as  an  example  of  holy 
disinterestedness  and  self-sacrifice  !  "  God  commend- 
eth  His  love  towards  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sin- 
ners, Christ  died  for  us."  "  Christ  also  suffered  for  us, 
leaving  us  an  example,  that  ye  should  follow  his  steps." 
Such  is  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord. 
When  we  consider  his  history  and  his  fate ;  coming 
forth  as  a  Eeformer  and  a  Saviour  ;  with  the  highest 
credentials,  claiming  uncompromisingly  to  have  direct 

*  Unitarianism  the  Doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  p.  378. 
f  E.  g.  Rom.  3  :  24,  25  ;  5  :  15-21 ;  Ephes.  2  :  4-10  ;  John  4  :  9,  10. 
X  Rom.  5  :  10;  11  :  15;  2  Cor.  5  :  18,  19,  20;  Col.  1  :  19-21. 
§  Rom.  5:6-8;  1  Pet.  2 :  21  ;  3  :  17,  13  ;  4  :  1. 

9 


194  THE  ATONEMENT. 

divine  authority  as  specially  sent  of  God  ;  devoting 
liimself  from  first  to  last  to  the  great  work  of  his  mis- 
sion and  ministry  ;  sparing  himself  no  labor  or  suffer- 
ing ;  addressing  men  grossly  corrupt,  "  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins,"  in  the  tenderest  and  most  earnest 
terms,  that  he  might  awaken  and  save  them ;  exercis- 
ing his  miraculous  power  in  offices  of  love  and  mercy ; 
yet  constantly  opposed  with  the  most  subtle  malice, 
cavilled  at,  persecuted,  arrested,  subjected  to  a  mock 
trial,  and  then  condemned  and  put  to  a  cruel  and  ig- 
nominious death  ;  what  confirmation  of  the  Apostles' 
words  is  here !  What  illustration  of  their  position, 
that  he  suffered  and  died  for  us  ! 

I  am  now  led  to  consider  somewhat  specially  the 
Epistle  to  the  .llebrews,  since  a  great  part  of  the  diffi- 
culty, I  am  persuaded,  existing  in  the  popular  mind 
upon  this  subject,  grows  out  of  the  peculiar  character 
and  language  of  this  Epistle.  I  enter  into  no  critical 
inquiry  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle,  that  ques- 
tio  vexata  ever  since  the  second  century  ;  for  I  take  it 
as  it  stands  —  if  not  written  by  St.  Paul  —  as  still  a 
canonical  book,  of  apostolic  origin  and  authority;  and 
shall  use  and  treat  it  accordingly. 

"What,  then,  is  the  object  or  design  of  this  Epistle  ? 

The  first  portion,  extending  to  the  nineteenth  verse 
of  the  tenth  chapter,  is  doctrinal.  First,  the  writer 
asserts  the  preeminence  of  Christ  over  all  the  former 
prophets  and  messengers  of  God ;  and  thence  argues 
for  the  superiority  of  his  dispensation  over  all  that 
preceded  it.  Next,  in  the  third  chapter,  he  argues  for 
his  superiority  specifically  over  Moses ;  and  for  the 
superiority  of  that  spiritual  "  rest"  which  he  ensures 
to  his  followers,  over  the  Israelitish  "  rest"  in  Canaan. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  195 

Then,  from  tlie  fourth  to  the  seventh  chapters  inclu- 
sive, he  sets  forth  Christ's  priesthood  and  its  superior- 
ity to  the  Levitical  priesthood ;  and  thence  infers  the 
speedy  and  entire  abolition  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial 
law.  Again,  to  the  nineteenth  verse  of  the  tenth 
chapter,  he  earnestly  endeavors  to  reconcile  the  He- 
brew converts  or  the  Hebrew  inquirers  to  the  offensive 
doctrine  of  a  crucified  Messiah,  that  great  "stumbling- 
block"  and  "  rock  of  offence"  to  the  Hebrew  mind ; 
by  representing  Christ's  death,  even  on  the  Cross,  as  a 
sacrifice  of  vastly  superior  efficacy  and  worth  to  any  or 
all  under  the  Old  Dispensation,  and  which  they  but 
foreshadowed. — The  remainder  of  the  Epistle  is  sim- 
ply practical. 

It  is  not  at  all  strange,  when  one  examines,  too,  the 
language  of  the  Epistle,  that  the  chief  arguments  for 
the  expiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  the  Atonement 
should  be  thence  drawn.  And  yet,  all  the  language 
which  at  first  sight  seemingly  supports,  or  is  alleged  to 
support  that  dogma,  is  easily  explained  by  reference  to 
the  design,  circumstances,  position  of  the  writer.  He 
was  a  Hebrew  addressing  Hebrews.  He  was,  as  is 
most  evident,  profoundly  versed  in  Hebrew  lore,  modes 
of  thought,  association  of  ideas,  as  well  as  its  history 
and  ritual.  He  not  unnaturally,  therefore,  employs  the 
argumentum  ad  hominem  ;'^  an  argument  which,  though 

*  "A  third  way  is  to  press  a  man  with  consequences  drawn  from  hig 
own  principles  or  concessions.  This  is  known  under  the  name  of 
argumentum  ad  hominem.'" — Locke  on  the  Understanding,  ii.  238. 

"The  argumentum  ad  hominem  consists  in  appealing  to  a  man's  acts, 
or  previous  declarations,  or  avowed  ^irinciples^  as  being  inconsistent 
with  the  position  he  is  at  present  maintaining." — Wilson's  Logic,  p. 
336. 


196  THE  ATONEMENT. 

not  absolutely  of  conclusive  force,  is  yet  sometimes  of 
great  rhetorical  efficiency ;  and  which,  while  of  special 
aptness  for  his  purpose,  he  uses  with  the  utmost  possi- 
ble skill.  But  though  it  was  a  good  argument  to  the 
Hebrews  of  that  day,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  it  is 
to  us. — This  view  accounts  also  for  the  remarkable  fact, 
that  in  none  of  the  Epistles  of  which  St.  Paul  is  the 
universally  accredited  writer,  in  no  other  Epistle,  in- 
deed, of  the  New  Testament,  is  there  the  least  allusion 
to  the  priestly  office  or  the  High  Priesthood  of  Christ ; 
but  in  this  it  is  made  prominent.  To  the  Hebrew  mind 
it  was  a  conception  at  once  striking  and  forcible. 

It  is,  moreover,  to  be  remarked  in  this  connection, 
that  in  only  two  instances  in  his  Epistles,  throwing  this 
Epistle  aside,  does  St.  Paul  speak  of  Christ's  death  as 
an  offering  or  a  sacrifice  ;  while  in  no  other  Epistle  of 
any  Apostle,  except  this  to  the  Hebrews,  is  it  ever  so 
spoken  of.  The  two  instances  referred  to  occur,  the 
first  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,*  and  thus 
reads  :  "  For  even  Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for 
us."  Now,  it  is  perfectly  well  understood  by  any  ordi- 
nary reader  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  Paschal 
Lamb,  the  Lamb  of  the  Passover,  slain  at  that  great 
Feast,  was  in  no  sense  a  sacrifice ;  it  was  simply  the 
symbol  of  the  ancient  deliverance  of  the  ancestral  He- 
brew race  when  the  destroying  angel  passed  over,  i.  e. 
spared  their  homes,  on  his  mission  of  death  to  the  first- 
born of  the  Egyptians.  Slain  at  the  Passover  seasoi^ 
as  Christ  was,  his  death,  though  no  more  sacrificial 
than  that  of  the  Paschal  Lamb,  marked  a  far  higher 

*  5  :  '7. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  197 

spiritual  deliverance,  and  so  warranted  tHe  Apostle's 
beautiful  figure.  The  other  passage  is  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  and  thus  reads:  "Christ  also  hath 
loved  us,  and  hath  given  himself  for  us,  an  offering 
and  a  sacrifice  to  God,  for  a  sweet-smelling  savor.""^ 
But  in  what  sense  the  Apostle  here  used  this  language, 
and  that  he  certainly  did  not  intend  by  it  to  represent 
the  death  of  his  Lord  as  literally  an  expiatory  sacrifice, 
may  be  seen  by  reference  to  his  Epistle  to  the  Philip - 
pians  ;  where,  in  the  original  Greek,  in  both  passages, 
he  uses  the  identical  loord  alike  and  correctly  rendered 
in  both  by  our  translators  "sacrifice";  and  in  both, 
the  identical  phrase  which  they  have  rendered  in  the 
former  "  a  sweet-smelling  savor,"  and  in  the  latter — as 
synonymous  with  it — "an  odor  of  a  sweet  smell;"  a 
phrase  certainly  expressive  rather  of  an  eucharistic, 
free-will,  or  thank-offering,  than  of  a  piacular  or  ex- 
piatory one.f 

*  Ephes.  5:2:  "Christ,  from  good-will  to  men,  made  a  sacrifice  of 
his  life  upon  the  Cross  ;  and  his  benevolent  and  disinterested  conduct 
in  this  instance  was  highly  acceptable  to  God,  which  is  here  expressed 
by  the  sacrificial  term,  *  an  offering  of  fragrant  odor.'  " — Belsham's  Ep. 
of  St.  Paul,  h.  1.  iii.  253,  note.  "  Usteri  (St.  Paul's  System,  4th  ed., 
p.  113)  expresses  himself  upon  our  passage  as  follows:  'The  context 
contains  only  this :  Christ  has,  in  his  yielding  up  of  himself,  so  well- 
pleasing  to  God,  left  us  a  pattern.  That  is  to  say,  the  giving  up  him- 
self by  Christ  was,  as  we  know  from  Phil.  2 :  8,  at  the  same  time  an 
act  of  obedience  towards  God,  and  therefore  attended  by  the  Divine 
approval.  'Oa/j.^  evuSia^  at  Phil.  4:18,  and  evudia  at  2  Cor.  2:15,  are 
used  in  a  similar  way  to  denote  the  Divine  well-pleasedness,  ivithout  the 
slightest  allusion  being  made  to  an  Atonements  " — Olshausen,  Comm. 
in  h.  1.  V.  123. 

\  Philip.  4:18:"  We  see  how  familiar  to  the  Jews  were  the  rites  of 
their  religion,  and  how  they  supplied  them  with  a  constant  source  of 


1 98  THE  ATONEMENT. 

When,  therefore,  we  find  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews 
especially  laboring  this  point,  we  infer  that  he  was 
grappling  with  Jewish  difficulties,  and  intent  on  over- 
coming them.  On  candid  Jewish  minds  his  views  and 
arguments,  and  the  language  in  which  they  were 
couched,  were  fitted  to  make,  and  doubtless  did  make 
a  vivid  and  deep  impression.  No  more  doubt  can 
there  justly  be,  however,  than  that  strong  as  at  times 
seems  his  language,  quoted  as  it  so  often  is  in  an  iso- 
lated way,  he  never  meant  to  teach  that  the  bloody 
sacrifices  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  of  themselves  actually 
atoned  for  or  removed  the  guilt  of  sin.  When,  there- 
fore, he  says  in  one  passage — "without  shedding  of 
blood  there  is  no  remission,""^  he  simply  states  a  fact  in 
the  Mosaic  economy,  namely,  that  no  ritual  offences 
were  remitted  except  by  the  "shedding  of  blood"  in 
the  prescribed  sacrifice.  "  This  leads  him  to  remark," 
says  Dr.  Carpenter,  "that  there  was  a  peculiar  fitness 
that,  in  the  new  dispensation,  purification  should  be 
made  with  superior  sacrifices.  What  he  refers  to 
obviously  was  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  he  remarks 
(v.  26)  that  the  Christ  '  hath  been  manifested  for  the 
removal  of  sin,'f  to  give  every  suitable   aid  and  en- 

figures  of  speech.  If  a  present  of  money  was  called  a  sacrifice  vjell- 
pleasing  to  God,  can  we  be  surprised  that  so  heroical  an  act  of  virtue 
as  that  which  Christ  manifested  in  his  death  should  also  be  called  a 
sacrifice  well-pleasing  to  God  ?  .  .  .  .  And  yet,  the  death  of 
Christ  has  been  considered  so  much  a  sacrifice,  as  by  this  means  alone 
the  anger  of  God  against  sin  has  been  appeased,  and  that  by  this 
means  only  he  has  become  propitious  to  offending  sinners," — Priestley, 
Notes  on  N.  T.  h.  1. 

*  9  :  22. 

f  In  the  Received  Version — "  hath  appeared,  to  put  away  sin." 


THE  ATONEMEXT.  199 

coiiragement  in  the  acquisition  of  holiness  in  "heart  and 
life,  'by  the  sacrifice  of  himself'"*  Thus  interpret- 
ing him,  we  learn  how  to  reconcile  the  declaration — 
''  without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission" — 
with  what  had  been  said  before,  and  what  he  ssljs 
afterwards.  Before,  he  liad  said  that  tlie  "  gifts  and 
sacrifices"  of  "  the  first  covenant,"  "  while  as  the  first 
tabernacle  was  yet  standing,"  "could  not  make  him 
that  did  the  service  perfect  as  pertaining  to  the  con- 
science'^ ;  and  again :  "If  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of 
goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean, 
sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh"  that  is,  from 
ri'ual  impurity ;  how  much,  more  shall  the  blood  of 
Christ,  who,  througli  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself 
without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead 
works  to  serve  the  living  God  !"f  Afterwards,  too,  he 
emphatically  says :  "  It  is  not  possible  that  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sins^j^  What 
could  more  clearly  prove  the  symbolical  character  and 
mere  ritual  ef&cacy  of  the  bloody  sacrifices  of  the  old 
dispensation  ;  and,  therefore,  the  transcendent  moral 
purpose  and  character,  and  paramount  spiritual  efS.cacy 
of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  ?  Besides,  be  it  remembered 
in  confirmation  of  the  ground  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  not,  could  not  be,  literally,  an  expiatory  sacrifice, 
— that,  as  we  saw  above,  he  is  our  "High  Priest." 
That  the  same  person  should  be  at  once  and  literally 
high  priest,  and  victim,  is  to  confound  all  distinctions 
of  terms  and  of  things,  to  state  a  contradiction  and  an 
impossibility.      ISTay,   if  we  look  carefully  into  the 

*  Unitarianism,  etc.  p.  386.  f  Hebr.  9  :  1,  8,  9,  13,  14. 

X  Ibid.  10  :  4. 


200  THE  ATONEMEXT. 

Scriptures,  we  shall  find  that  Christ  is  not  only  a 
"priest"  and  a  "  High  Priest"  and  a  "  sacrifice,"  but  he 
is  "  the  Lamb  slain,"  yes,  and  "  slain  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world";  he  is  a  "door,"  a  "way,"  a 
"vine,"  a  "  chief  corner-stone" ;  a  "captain,"  a  "king," 
a  "shepherd"  ;  "the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Juda,  the 
Eoot  of  David."  Is  he,  then,  could  he  be,  literally 
all  these  ?  Must  it  not  in  every  case  be  metaphoricalh^, 
or  at  most,  by  way  of  accommodation  to  the  various 
ofSces  and  relations  in  which  he  is  revealed,  and  which 
he  sustains  ? 

It  has  been  so  common  with  the  orthodox  to  charge 
us  with  placing  no  reliance  on  the  death  of  Christ,  or 
ascribing  to  it  no  efiicacy  in  the  salvation  of  man,  that 
some  may  be  surprised  to  hear  me  give  the  charge  a  flat 
denial.  Ko  Christian  Unitarian  has  any  doubt  of  the 
value  and  importance  of  that  event,  or  of  the  reality  of 
the  sacrifice  therein  embodied.  The  dispute  does  not  turn 
on  the  point  whether  Christ  "  died  for  the  ungodly," 
"died  for  our  sins,"  "died  for  all,"  for  these  are  but 
the  simple  declarations  of  that  Scripture  on  which  we 
claim  to  stand ;  but,  upon  the  interpretation  of  the 
special  effects,  the  peculiar  virtue,  the  reach  of  the  in- 
fluence of  his  death.  And,  though  differences  exist 
among  us  as  to  these  points,  they  do  not  affect  our 
general  faith,  nor  are  they  in  themselves  so  great  as 
those  which  obtain  among  our  opponents. 

Let  it  be  understood,  then,  that  among  Unitarians, 
there  are  three  prevalent  opinions  upon  the  effects  of 
the  death  of  the  Saviour.  The  first,  simply  affirms  tlie 
fact  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  a  means  of  pardon, 
without  determining  either  the  nature,  mode  of  ope- 


THE  ATONEMENT.  201 

ration,  or  exact  extent  of  influence  as  regards  tlie  De- 
ity; it  regards  it,  in  tlie  words  of  Mr.  Sparks,  as  "  a 
sacrifice  designed  to  expiate,  or  take  away  tke  guilt  of 
sin,  by  its  influence  in  procuring  the  pardon  of  God, 
which  would  not  have  been  granted  without  such  a 
sacrifice."  This  view  closely  resembles  that  of  Bishop 
Butler,  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  and  Archbishop  Magee* 
of  the  English  Church,  and  was  held  by  Socinus  and 
the  Polish  Unitarians  in  general ;  by  Drs.  Price  and 
John  Taylor,  and  many  English  Unitarians  of  their 
day ;  it  is  the  faith  of  the  Genevan  and  other  Swiss 
Unitarians  of  our  own  time.  The  second  opinion,  em- 
braces reasons  why  God  accepts  the  death  of  Christ  as 
a  means  of  pardon,  namely,  on  account  of  his  holiness 
and  obedience  ;  "for  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ, 
he  has  been  rewarded  by  the  Father,  in  an  exalted 
state,  with  supreme  power  to  forgive  sins,  to  make 
effectual  intercession  for  transgressors,  and  bestow  sal- 
vation on  all  such  as  are  truly  penitent  and  worthy." 
Some  of  the  early  Socinians  held  this ;  and  it  was  held 
by  Thomas  Emlyn,  Henry  Taylor,  Dr.  Benson,  and 
others  in  England  and  our  own  country.  The  third, 
views  the  agency  of  Christ  in  the  work  of  salvation  as 
affecting  man  alone,  and  not  God  ;  "  that  his  death  was 
chiefly  instrumental  in  leading  men  to  embrace  his  re- 
ligion, obey  his  commands,  repent  of  their  wickedness, 
forsake  their  sins,  and  attain  that  perfect  holiness  of 
character,  which  God  is  always  ready  to  accept  and 
reward  with  pardon,  and  without  which  no  man  can 

*  Butler's  Analogy,  p.  281;  Magee  on  Atonement,  i.  pp.  18,  19. 
9^ 


202  THE  ATONEMENT. 

be  fitted  for  his  future  kingdom."  This  has  been 
always  the  view  of  a  large  portion  of  those  who  are 
and  have  been  known  abroad  and  at  home  as  Unit- 
arians ;  it  was  the  view  of  Priestley,  and  of  those  in 
his  day  who  were  called  in  England,  Humanitarians ; 
and  is  the  most  distinctly  antagonistic  to  the  genuine 
Calvinistic  view,  which  insists  that  the  whole  effect  is 
on  God.* 

Dr.  Channing  says :  "  We  have  no  desire  to  conceal 
the  fact,  that  a  difference  of  opinion  exists  among  us, 
in  regard  to  an  interesting  part  of  Christ's  mediation  ; 
I  mean  in  regard  to  the  precise  influence  of  his  death 
on  our  forgiveness.  Many  suppose,  that  this  event  con- 
tributes to  our  pardon,  as  it  was  a  principal  means  of 
confirming  his  religion  and  of  giving  it  power  over  the 
mind  ;  in  other  words,  that  it  procures  forgiveness  by 
leading  to  that  repentance  and  virtue,  which  is  the 
great  and  only  condition  on  which  forgiveness  is  be- 
stowed. Many  of  us  are  dissatisfied  with  this  expla- 
nation, and  think  that  the  Scriptures  ascribe  the  re- 
mission of  sins  to  Christ's  death,  with  an  emphasis  so 
peculiar,  that  we  ought  to  consider  this  event  as  hav- 
ing a  special  influence  in  removing  punishment,  though 
the  Scriptures  may  not  reveal  the  way  in  which  it 
contributes  to  this  end."f  Dr.  Henry  Ware,  Sen.,  says : 
"  He  (Christ)  was  our  redeemer,  by  doing  and  suf- 
fering all  that  was  necessary  to  effect  our  deliverance 
from  the  power  of  sin,  to  bring  us  to  repentance  and 
holiness,  and  thus  make  us  the  fit  object  of  forgiveness 

*  Sparks'  Lett,  to  Miller,  p.  199 ;  whose  words,  as  will  be  seen,  I  have 
quoted  above. 

f  Works,  iii.  pp.  88,  89. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  203 

and  the  favor  of  heaven."^      Dr.   Gr.  E.  Ellis  says  : 
"  Orthodoxy,  not  through  warrant  of  any  thing  which 
Unitarianism  proclaims,  but  by  one  of  the  unkind  arts 
of  controversy,  attempts  to  confine  our  construction  of 
the  atoning  death  of  Christ  to  the  power  and  service 
of  an  example.     We  protest  against  the  charge ;  we 
repel  it.     What  some  Unitarians  may  have  recognized 
as  a  subsidiary  and  incidental  lesson  from  the  cross  of 
Christ,  ought  not  to  be  thus  represented  as  exhausting 
our  yiew  of  it.     It  is  not  our  doctrine  that  the  death 
of  Christ  becomes  efacacious  to  us  as  an  example,  or 
even  that  it  is  especially  needed  or  available  in  that 
direction.      Christ  is  to  us  a  victim,  a  sacrifice;  his 
death  was  a  sacrificial  death.     Its  method  and  purpose 
and  influence  fix  a  new,  a  specific,  a  peculiar,  an  emi- 
nent meaning  to  the  word  sacrifice^  when  used  of  him. 
Indeed,  the  highest  and  most  sacred  signification  of 
the  word  ought  forever  to  be  associated  with  Ms  sacri- 
fice.    But,  in  conformity  with  that  deciding  distinction 
.     .     .     of  a  G-od-ward  or  a  man-ward  intent  in  the 
cross,  we  regard  Jesus  as  a  sacrifice  for  man,  but  not 
as  a  sacrifice  to  God.     The  difference  is  an  infinite  one, 
as  indicated  by  those  two  prepositions  attached  respect- 
ively to  the  creature  and  the  Creator.      We  regard 
Christ  as  a  victim  offered  by  human  sin  for  human 
redemption  ;  as  one  who  could  not  have  been  our  Ee- 
deemer  but  by  being  '  faithful  unto  death,'  and  as  a 
willing  sacrifice  for  our  redemption.     He  was  led  as  a 
lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  his  murderers,  as  the  Pro- 
phet foretold  that  they  would,  had  wrongly  '  esteemed 
him  stricken,  smitten  of  God,  and  afilicted.'     (Isaiah 

*  Letters  to  Trinitarians,  p.  92, 


204  THE  ATONEMENT. 

53  :  4.)  But  instead  of  being  '  stricken  of  God,'  lie 
was  '  wounded  for  our  iniquities.'  '  He  tasted  death 
for  every  man' ;  not  eternal  deatli,  but  death.  He  was 
nailed  to  the  cross  to  secure  our  salvation,  but  not  to 
make  reparation  for  our  sins  to  God."'^ 

Where,  then,  at  this  stage  of  the  discussion,  is  the 
great  difference  between  the  Orthodox  and  ourselves  ? 
They  say  that  repentance  and  reformation  are  not 
enough,  of  themselves  and  alone,  to  secure  God's  for- 
giveness and  acceptance  of  sinners  ;  that  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ  were  indispensable  to  the  end  tliat 
God,  consistently  with  the  integrity  of  his  moral  cha- 
racter and  government,  should  forgive  sin.  We  say, 
not  only  that  God  could,  but  that  He  promised  by  his 
Prophets  and  by  Christ  himself  tliat  He  would — nay, 
that  He  always  did  and  always  vfill,  forgive  sin  on  re- 
pentance and  amendment  of  life ;  and  that  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  Christ  were  necessary,  as  essential 
parts  of  his  mediatorial  work,  the  more  effectually  to 
lead  men  to  repentance  and  holy  living,  and  thus  prove 
them  to  be  reconciled  to  God,  as  the  Divine  conditions 
of  pardon.  You  may  gather  illustrations  of  the  first 
branch  of  this  position,  from  all  parts  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Jehovah  proclaimed  himself  to  Moses,  as  the 
"  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  ....  forgiving 
iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin."  When  Moses  in- 
tercedes with  Jehovah  for  the  people,  he  refers  to  this 
very  proclamation,  and  on  the  strength  of  it  says : 
"  '  Pardon,  I  beseech  thee,  the  iniquity  of  this  people, 
according  u.nto  the  greatness  of  thy  mercy,  and  as  thou 

*  Ilalf-Centurv  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy,  pp.  193,  194. 


THE  ATOXEMEXT.  205 

hast  forgiven  this  people  from  Egypt  even  nntil  now.' 
And  the  Lord  said,  '  I  have  pardoned  according  to  thy 
word.'  "  Isaiah  also  declares  :  "  Let  the  wicked  for- 
sake his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts ; 
and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  He  will  have 
mercy  upon  him  ;  and  to  our  God,  and  He  will  abun- 
dantly pardon."^'  Surely  the  New  Testament  is  not 
behind  the  Old  in  this  matter.  Keither  John  the  Bap- 
tist, nor  our  Lord,  intimated  any  conditions  beyond 
Eepentance,  and  its  corresponding  fruits  in  the  life,  as 
the  preparation  for  receiving  the  Gospel  and  being 
accepted  of  God ;  and  how  fully  and  broadly,  not  to 
add  how  beautifully  and  tenderly,  did  the  latter  teach 
this  ef&cacy  of  Eepentance  in  the  exquisite  parable  of 
the  Prodigal !  Accordingly,  when  our  Lord  had  as- 
cended to  the  Father,  St.  Paul  "taught  publicly,  and 
from  house  to  house,  testifying  both  to  the  Jews,  and 
also  to  the  Greeks,  Eepentance  toward  God,  and  Faith 
toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ" ;  while  the  beloved 
disciple  declares  :  "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  God  is  faith- 
ful and  just" — not  simply  gracious  and  merciful — ^but 
"faithful,"  as  if  in  recognition  of  his  ancient  promises 
and  dealings,  and  "just,"  as  if  all  conditions  of  pardon 
had  been  met — "  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our 
sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  iniquity."! 

Again,  while  both  parties  agree  that  the  essence  of 
the  Atonement  as  to  its  purpose  and  result  is  Eeconcil- 
iation,  the  Orthodox  insist  that  its  effect  is  on  God,  and 

*  Exod.  34  :  6,  7  ;  Numb.  14  :  17-19 ;  Isa.  55  :  V ;  see  also  Ezek. 
18,  throughout,  and  that  glorious  103d  Psalm. 

f  Matt.  3  :  2,  8 ;  4  :  n  ;  Luke  15  ;  Acta  20  :  20,  21 ;  1  John  1:9; 
see  also  Luke  24  :  4G,  47. 


203  THE  ATONEMENT. 

we  hold  that  it  is  on  man.  And  here  it  is  to  be  re- 
marked that  this  EngHsh  word  Atonement^  which  is  so 
constantly  repeated  in  orthodox  pulpits,  occurs  only 
once  in  the  whole  of  our  English  version  ;*  and  should 
there,  beyond  all  question,  read  Reconciliation^  as  in- 
deed it  does  in  the  margin  of  the  Polyglott.  Besides, 
the  Greek  noun  KaraXXajT]^  there  rendered  "Atone- 
ment," is,  in  the  only  two  other  texts  in  which  it 
occurs  in  the  original,  rendered  "  Eeconciliation"  ;f 
and  in  the  verse  preceding  that  in  which  it  is  rendered 
"Atonement,"  and  elsewhere  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
those  words  which  are  rendered  "reconciled,"  "recon- 
cile," "  reconciling,"  are  all  from  the  same  Greek  root.J: 
To  recur,  then,  to  our  respective  positions,  who  were 
tlie  parties  at  variance  ?  The  answer  on  all  sides  is, 
God  and  man.  Which  was  to  be  reconciled  ?  The 
Orthodox,  as  I  have  said,  always  insist  that  God  was 
to  be  reconciled  to  man  ;  and  we,  with  the  New  Testa 
ment  for  our  warrant,  which,  without  a  solitary  excep- 
tion uniformly  so  declares,  that  man  was  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  God.     I  repeat,  and  I  beg  especial  attention  to 

*  Kom.  5:11.  f  2  Cor.  5  :  18  and  19. 

X  Rom.  5:9;  Ephes.  2:16;  Col.  1 :  20,  21.— It  is  well  known  that 
at  the  time  our  English  version  was  made,  the  word  Atonement,  i.  e. 
At-one-ment,  was  synonymous  with,  or  literally  signified  Reconcilia- 
tion ;  and  is  so  used  by  the  writers  of  that  period.  Our  translators, 
doubtless,  so  used  it.  Examples  in  cotemporary  writers  are  frequent. 
Here  are  two  from  Shakspeare  : 

"  He  and  Aufidius  can  no  more  atone 
Than  violentest  contrariety." 

Coriolanus,  Act.  iv.  so.  6. 
"He  seeks  to  make  atonement 
Between  the  Duke  of  Gloster  and  your  brothers." 

Richard  III.,  Act.  i.  sc.  8. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  207 

the  fact,  that  there  is  not  the  least  Scriptural  authority 
for  speaking  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  as 
either  intended  or  adapted  for  that  most  unnecessary 
and  gratuitous  work  of  reconciling  God  to  man.  On 
the  contrary,  St.  Paul  expressly  says  :  "  When  we 
were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death 
of  His  Son." — "All  things  are  of  God,  who  hath  re- 
conciled us  to  Himself  by  Jesus  Christ." — "  God  was 
in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself" — "  that 
he  might  reconcile  both  (Jews  and  Gentiles)  unto  God 
in  one  body  by  the  Cross." — "  It  pleased  the  Father 
that  in  him  (Christ)  should  all  fulness  dwell ;  and  hav- 
ing made  peace  by  the  blood  of  his  Cross,  by  him  to 
reconcile  all  things  unto  Himself ;  .  .  .  .  and  you, 
that  were  sometimes  alienated,  and  enemies  in  your 
mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled." 
St.  Peter  also  says :  "  Christ  hath  once  suffered  for 
sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to 
God."*  Surely,  no  language  could  be  more  explicit. 
Once  more ;  all  sections  of  the  Church  agree,  first, 
in  the  necessity  of  removing  the  guilt  of  sin  and  its 
consequences,  before  man  can  be  a  truly  happy  being 
here  or  hereafter.  Secondly,  that  the  present  condition 
of  mankind  is,  in  point  of  fact,  in  the  case  of  every 
individual  of  the  race,  more  or  less  sinful ;  "all  have 
sinned ;"  and  the  joys  of  the  blessed  can  only  be  ex- 
perienced by  the  penitent  and  the  holy.  Thirdly,  that 
the  removal  of  the  consequences  of  sin  is  the  work  of 
God.  Man  may  avoid  and  repent  of  sin,  but  he  cannot 
of  himself  remove  its  consequences.     In  other  words, 

*  Rom.   5  :  10  ;    2  Cor.  5  :  18,  19  ;    Ephes.  2  :  16  ;    Col.  1 :  19-21  ; 
1  Peter  3  :  18; 


208  THE  ATONEMENT. 

Repentance  is  our  work,  Pardon  God's.  Hence  the 
question,  how  can  we  escape  the  deserved  and  threat- 
ened punishment  of  our  sins  and  be  saved  ?  And  all 
answer,  that  Pardon  and  Salvation  to  every  believer 
are  by  and  through  Christ,  the  appointed  Mediator 
between  God  and  Man. 

What,  then,  at  this  stage  of  the  discussion,  is  the 
matter  of  debate  ?  Obviously,  the  mode  or  means  by 
which  Christ  saves  us.  The  Orthodox  say — by  suffer- 
ing and  dying  in  our  stead ;  for,  this  notion  of  vicari- 
ousness  or  substitution,  that  is,  the  standing  in  the  place 
or  stead  of  another,  may  be  found  in  every  modifica- 
tion of  their  views  on  this  subject  almost  without  ex- 
ception ;  and  again,  they  say — by  sustaining  the  honor 
of  God's  law,  and  the  integrity  of  His  moral  character 
and  government  as  being  perfectly  just,  righteous  and 
holy,  through  the  literal  voluntary  expiation  which 
-  Christ  made  upon  the  Cross  ;  thus  rendering  it  at  once 
consistent  and  safe  for  God  to  forgive  human  sin  on  the 
repentance  and  faith  of  the  sinner.  We  say,  on  the 
contrary,  that  Christ  saves  us,  so  far  as  his  sufferings 
and  death  are  concerned,  through  their  moral  influ- 
ence and  power  upon  man  ;  the  great  appeal  which 
they  make  being  not  to  God,  but  to  the  sinner's  con- 
science and  heart ;  thus  aiding  in  the  great  work  of 
bringing  him  into  reconciliation  with,  or  reconciling 
him  to,  his  Father  in  heaven.  They  "purge  the 
conscience,"  as  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  expresses  it,* 
which  is  precisely  the  sinner's  need.  I  am  glad  in 
passing  to  remark  that  this  view  has  of  late  been  ad- 

*  Heb.  9  :  14. 


THE  ATOXEMEIvT.  209 

mitted  and  preached  by  some  Ortliodox  divines  ;*  and 

also,  that  it  is  not  as  common  as  it  once  was,  to  speak 
of  satisfying  the  justice  or  appeasing  the  wrath  of  the 
Almighty. 

But  bear  in  mind,  that  though  we  yield  to  none  in 
our  grateful  acknowledgments  of  the  vast  importance 
and  worth  in  the  work  of  our  salvation  of  the  suffer- 
ings, the  death,  the  Cross  of  Christ,  we  do  not  empha- 
size them  to  the  degree  of  saying,  that  they  v/ere  or 
are  the  sole  and  exclusive  means  of  accomplishing  that 
work.  We  do  not,  because  the  Scriptures  authorize 
no  such  view.  In  them  v/e  are  over  and  over  again 
said  to  be  saved  by  many  and  various  other  things,  be- 
sides the  Cross,  besides  the  agony  and  death  of  our 
Lord.  In  that  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans 
to  which  I  have  before  referred,  though  we  are  said  to 
be  '■^reconciled  to  God  hy  the  death  of  His  Son,"  Paul 
express^  declares  that  "  we  shall  be  saved  hy  his  lifey\ 
Again,  in  the  same  Epistle,  "  we  are  saved  by  Hope"  ]X 
while  to  the  Ephesians  he  says,  "by  Grace  ye  are 
saved."§  In  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  it  is 
by  what  he  calls  "  the  foolishness  of  preaching"  ;  and 
again,  by  the  "  Gospel"  which  "  he  preached."!  Peter, 
moreover,  intimates  that  we  are  saved  "by  the  Kesur- 
rection  of  Jesus  Christ"  ;  and  Paul  certainly  gives  pre- 
eminence to  the  Resurrection,  as  though  that  were  the 
more  important.     "  Christ  that  died,"  he  says,  "  yea, 

*  As  by  Pres.  Wayland,  sermon  at  Hague's  Installation,  pp.  V  and 
seq.  See  also  Barnes'  Introd.  Essay  to  Butler's  Anal.  pp.  7  and  seq 
See  also  Barnes'  Essay,  Introductory  to  Butler's  Analogy,  pp.  xxxix. 
et  seq.  •{•  5  :  10.  t  8 :  24.  §2:5. 

jl  1  Ep.  1:21;   15:  2. 


210  THE  aton:ement. 

rather^  tliat  hath,  risen  again^  Especially  does  lie  lay 
the  greater  stress  on  the  Kesurrection  of  our  Lord  in 
that  grand  argument  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians. "If  Christ  be  not  risen^  then  is  our  preaching 
vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain.  Yea ;  and  we  are 
found  false  witnesses  of  Grod,  because  we  have  testified 
of  God  that  He  raised  up  Christ,  whom  He  raised  not 
up,  if  so  be  that  the  dead  rise  not.  For  if  the  dead 
rise  not,  Christ  is  not  raised :  and" — mark  the  distinct- 
ness of  his  language — "  if  Christ  he  not  raised^  your  faith 
is  vain  ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins  r^  What,  in  the  light 
of  this  reasoning  of  Paul,  becomes  of  the  idea  that  the 
death  of  Christ,  his  sufferings,  his  Crucifixion,  were  the 
sole  means  by  which  we  are  saved  ?  It  utterly  vanishes ; 
and  then  rises  before  us  the  more  just,  reasonable,  and 
scriptural  view,  that  we  are  saved  by  the  whole  me- 
diatorial agency  in  which  Christ  was  engaged  from 
first  to  last ;  in  which,  indeed,  he  is,  and  will  be,  en- 
gaged, until  "he  shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom 
to  God,  even  the  Father. "f 

This,  then,  is  our  position.  Salvation  is  reconcil- 
iation to  God ;  and  that  Eeconciliation  (At-one-ment) 
is  accomplished  by  Christ,  in  "saving  us  from  our 
sins,"  in  turning  away  every  one  of  us  from  his  iniqui- 
ties," which  alone  alienate  us  from  God.:]:  But  how  ? 
By  all  that  he  vf as  and  is ;  all  that  he  taught,  did,  and 
is  doing;  and  by  all  that  he  suffered  for  our  sake. 
Kot  by  one,  but  by  all  of  these. 

By  his  whole  life  on  earth,  as  our  sinless,  holy,  be- 
nevolent Exemplar ;  by  his  piety  to  God ;  his  love  to 

*  1  Peter  3 :  21 ;  Rom.  8  :  34 ;    1  Cor.  15  :  14-17.      f  1  ^or.  15  :  24. 
X  Matt.  1  :  23  ;  Acts  3  :  2G ;   Col.  1  :  21. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  211 

man ;  his  works  of  mercj  ;  his  unwearied  benevolence 
even  to  his  persecutors  ;  his  patience  under  wrong  and 
suffering  ;  his  perfect  obedience  and  submission  to  his 
Father's  will. 

By  his  miracles ;  wrought  in  attestation  of  his  Di- 
vine mission,  in  proof  that  he  was  the  Son  of  Grod, 
and  that  God  was  with  him  and  in  him. 

By  his  instructions ;  conveyed  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  in  his  exquisite  parables,  in  his  solemn  warn- 
ings against  sin,  in  his  call  to  repentance,  in  his  encour- 
aging offers  and  promises  to  the  faithful,  in  his  23arting 
counsels,  in  all  "  the  gracious  words  which  proceeded 
out  of  his  mouth." 

By  his  great  Revelations  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God, 
the  parental  character  of  His  Government  and  law, 
the  infinite  embrace  of  His  Love  and  Mercy,  and  His 
free  and  unpurchased  grace  in  Christ ;  of  the  Immor- 
tality of  man,  of  the  vast  trust  and  stewardship  of 
life,  of  our  moral  accountableness,  and  the  retributive 
character  of  the  eternal  future. 

And,  while  denying  that  the  Scriptures  ever  attri- 
bute our  salvation  to  the  death  of  Christ  alone,  we 
thankfully  believe,  as  prominent  in  his  entire  agency 
for  that  great  end,  that  God  "  having  made  peace 
by  the  blood  of  his  Cross,"  we  are  saved  by  the 
moral  influence  and  power  of  our  Lord's  death  and 
sacrifice ;  a  true,  real,  voluntary  sacrifice ;  not  made 
to  God,  indeed,  for  then  it  would  seem  that  He  need- 
ed to  be  propitiated  or  rendered  merciful,  when  in 
His  own  infinite  nature  He  was  always  and  perfectly 
merciful ;  but  for  man,  in  man's  behalf,  for  man's  sake, 
for  man's  present  and  everlasting  good.     By  this  view 


212  THE  ATONEMEi^T, 

of  Christ's  sacrifice,  can  it  alone  be  made  to  harmonize 
with  God's  free  forgiveness  of  sin,  "I,  even  I,  am 
He,  saith  the  Lord,  that  blotteth  out  thy  transgressions 
for  mine  own  sake^^  we  read  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
and  in  the  New,  St.  Paul  speaks  of  our  "being  freely 
justified  by  his  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus.""^  In  this  view,  it  most  emphatically 
appeals  to  man's  conscious  sense  of  obligation,  obedi- 
ence, gratitude,  and  love  to  the  Saviour,  and  to  the 
Father  who  "spared  not  His  own  Son,  but  delivered 
him  up  for  us  all." 

■  ,  Finally,  we  are  saved  by  our  Lord's  Resurrection ; 
proving  him  to  be  "  the  Son  of  Grod  with  power" ; 
confirming  our  faith  that  we  are  sharers  in  his  "  vic- 
tory," and  that  "because  he  lives,  we  shall  live  also"  ; 
by  his  glorious  Ascension  to  the  Father,  and  his  pre- 
sent and  perpetual  Intercession.  "  By  all  these  means 
and  ways,"  in  the  words  of  Tillotson,  which  he  says 
"  have  all  a  great  influence  in  reforming  and  saving 
mankind,"  Christ  "  is  the  author  and  cause  of  our  sal- 
vation.'-f 

To  all  this  it  is  objected  that  we  take  away  the  last 
hope  of  the  sinner,  the  Infinite  Atonement  of  the  Sav- 
iour made  to  God ;  that  being  the  essential  pre-requi- 
site  to  pardon  of  sin,  which  is  an  infinite  evil  as  com- 
mitted against  the  Infinite  One.  But  on  the  highest  and 
most  explicit  Scriptural  authority,  we  deny  that  any  such 
Atonement  was  essential — nay,  was  made.  God  could 
and  did,  before  Christ  entered  the  world,  freely  pardon 
sin  on  repentance,  as  I  have  already  shown.     Besides, 

*  Isa.  43  :  25  ;  Rom.  3  :  24.  f  Works,  vol,  vii.  p.  2069. 


THE  ATOXEMEIST.  213 

man  is  a  finite  being,  and  can,  therefore,  perform  no  in- 
finite action,  good  or  bad.  If,  too,  sin  be  infinite,  then 
all  sins  are  equal ;  there  can  be  no  gradations  in  guilt, 
since  there  are  none  in  infinity.  J^ay,  every  single 
sin  must  then  be  infinite,  and  there  should  be  as  many 
infinite  atonements  as  there  have  been  sins  comnfitted. 
The  absurdity  of  this  need  not  surely  be  shown.  If, 
moreover,  our  sins,  our  evil  deeds,  be  infinite  because 
against  an  Infinite  Being,  so  must  be  our  virtues,  our 
good  deeds,  which  are  for  Him ;  and  then — as  is  so  often 
and  falsely  charged  upon  us — might  we  put  ourselves 
on  our  own  merits  with  a  vengeance !  If  sin,  how- 
ever, be  not  infinite,  as  we  insist  it  cannot  be,  being 
the  act  of  a  finite  being  like  man,  then  was  there  no 
need  of  that  impossible  thing,  an  Infinite  Atonement. 
But  the  fact  is,  that  the  Trinitarian  majority  in  the 
church,  with  all  the  tenacity  in  which  they  hold  and 
teach  that  an  Infinite  Atonement  was  necessary,  long 
ago  stultified  themselves  by  the  assumption  that  the 
Atonement  of  Christ  is  of  that  character,  and  therefore 
fully  meets  the  required  conditions.  Is  it  so  ?  Is  it 
according  to  their  own  statements  of  the  doctrine.  In- 
finite? Notoriously  not.  "j^o  doubt,"  says  Prof 
Tayler  Lewis,  "  it  has  been  the  common  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  or  the  great  majority  of  true  Christians  in 

all  ages, that  the  Deity  is  immutable,  and 

therefore,  as  far  as  the  one  implies  the  other,  impassi- 
ble.""^ When  pressed,  then,  by  the  inquiry,  '  Did  God 
Himself  suffer  and  die  on  Calvary  ?'  their  reply  must 
be — '  Yes — God  the  Son.' — ^Did  God  the  Son,  then,  as 
God  or  in  his  Divine  nature,  suffer  and  die  on  Calva- 

*  Bibl.  Repository,  3d  Ser.  vol.  ii.  p.  411. 


214  THE  ATONEMENT. 

Tj  T — '  No — ^but  in  his  Human  nature,'  must  be  tlie 
answer.  How  obvious  for  us  to  rejoin — '  Then  you 
show  no  Infinite  Atonement.  All  human  nature  is 
finite.  You  hold  that  in  his  human  nature,  Christ  was 
entirely  human  ;  that  he  had  a  human  body  and  a 
humain  soul.  If  he  suffered  and  died  only  in  his  hu- 
man nature,  only  as  man,  his  sufferings  and  death  by 
no  proper  use  of  language  can  Be  called  infinite,  by  no 
possibility  can  be  infinite.  No  Infinite  Atonement  is 
shown.' 

If  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  to  turn  to  Bishop 
Pearson's  work  on  the  Creed,  he  will  see  how  the  bold- 
est statements  in  regard  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
apparently  as  God  "  on  first  view  and  on  repeated 
reviews" — to  use  an  expression  of  Prof  Lewis — end 
in  a  most  lame  and  impotent  conclusion.  "  That  Word 
which  was  in  the  beginning,  which  then  was  with  God, 
and  was  God,  in  the  fulness  of  time  being  made  flesh, 
did  suffer  ....  God  purchased  the  Church  with  His 
oivn  blood  ....  When  he  (our  Saviour)  was  buffeted 
and  scourged,  there  was  no  other  person  sensible  of 
those  pains,  than  the  Eternal  Word  which  before  all 
worlds  was  impassible;  when  he  was  crucified  and 
died,  there  was  no  other  person  which  gave  up  the 
ghost  but  the  Son  of  Him,  and  so  of  the  same  nature 
with  Him,  who  only  hath  immortality.^''  But  with  all 
this  strength  of  language,  he,  nevertheless,  in  the  same 
paragraph  asserts,  that  "  the  Lord  of  Glory,  and  most 
truly  God,  took  upon  him  the  nature  of  man,  and  in 
that  nature,  being  still  the  same  person  that  before  he 
was,  did  suffer.""^     That  this  was  his  belief  as  it  is 

*  Pp.  186,  187. 


THE  ATOXEilENT.  215 

"  the  prevalent  hypothesis"  among  the  orthodox,  is 
even  more  distinctly  stated  by  him  elsewhere.  "  As 
we  ascribe  the  Passion  to  the  Son  alone,  so  must  we 
attribute  it  to  that  nature  which  is  his  alone,  that  is  the 

human Far  be  it,  therefore,  from  us,  to 

think  that  the  Deity,  which  is  immutable,  could  suffer ; 
which  only  hath  immortality,  could  die."  Hence  the 
conclusion  after  all  is,  that  the  human,  the  finite 
nature,  was  all  that  suffered,  was  that  which  died. 
"  Thus,"  says  Channing,  "this  vaunted  system  goes 
out — in  words.  The  Infinite  victim  proves  to  be  frail 
man,  and  God's  share  in  the  sacrifice  is  a  mere  fiction. 
I  ask  with  solemnity.  Can  this  doctrine  give  one  mo- 
ment's ease  to  the  conscience  of  an  unbiassed,  thinking 
man  ?"* 

This  grand  and  fundamental  diffi.culty  in  the  theory 
which  has  so  long  prevailed  in  the  Church,  was  per- 
ceived and  deeply  felt  by  the  late  George  G.  Griffin, 
of  New- York,  a  barrister  of  acknowledged  ability 
and  accomplishment.  In  his  work  entitled,  "  The  Suf- 
ferings of  Christ,"  he  boldly  and  manfully  takes  and 
attempts  to  maintain  the  position,  "That  Christ  suf- 
fered in  both  his  natures."  In  the  course  of  his  argu- 
ment, he  says :  "  Without  adequate  suffering  not  a 
soul  could  be  saved.  The  second  person  of  the  Trin- 
ity voluntarily  became  the  vicarious  Sufferer  for  the 
redeemed.  The  substitution  was  not  to  depress  the 
awful  standard  of  retributive  justice.  The  Glory  of 
the  Godhead  was  to  be  maintained ;  heaven  must  be 
satisfied,  hell  silenced.  The  substituted  coin  was  to  bear 
the  scrutiny  of  eternity.  The  redeeming  God  lacked  not 

*  Works,  iii.  189. 


216  THE  AT0XE3IENT. 

capacity  to  suffer."*  This  last  sentence  is  of  special 
significance  in  the  connection  ;  because,  as  I  have  said, 
he  maintains,  contrary  to  the  old  Athanasian,  which 
he  calls  the  now  "prevalent  theory,"  or  "hypothesis," 
namely  that  "  God  is  impassible,"  or,  in  other  words, 
that  "  the  Divine  nature  is  incapable  of  suffering,"  that 
the  Divine  nature  can  and  did  suffer  in  Christ.  Hence 
he  speaks  of  "the  incarnate,  suffering,  dying,  risen 
God."  "  God,  the  Son,  suffered  not  by  proxy.  .  .  . 
If  the  God  suffered  not  in  his  ethereal  essence,  the 
Scriptural  declarations  of  his  sufferings  are  not  true,  in 
the  amplitude  of  Scriptural  verity.  ...  The  sufferings, 
in  the  delineation  of  which  even  Inspiration  seems  to 
falter,  were  not  limited  to  the  finite,  but  pervaded  also 
the  most  sacred  recesses  of  that  iDfinite  essence  which 
went  to  constitute  the  holy  union,  styled  by  our  oppo- 
nents," (so  he  calls  the  orthodox  "  advocates"  of  the 
"  popular  theory,")  "the  person  of  Christ.  The  suffer- 
ings of  the  man  lay  within  the  limits  of  Scriptural  de- 
lineation. The  agonies  of  the  God  none  but  a  God 
could  conceive.  Perhaps  even  Omnipotence  could 
not  make  them  intelligible  to  creature  comprehension."f 
It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  undertake  specially  the 
refutation  of  Mr.  Griflin  ;  but  simply  to  show  to  what 
extraordinary  language  he  was  obliged  to  resort  in  the 
statement  and  unfolding  of  a  theory  which  should  logi- 
cally meet  the  demands  of  Orthodoxy.  He  saw  that 
"  the  prevalent  theory"  of  his  orthodox  "  opponents," 
that  only  the  finite  human  nature  of  Christ  suffered, 
while  an  infinite  atonement  was  demanded  by  the  alleged 

*  Second  edition,  1846,  pp.  48,  50. 
f  Pp.  49,  82,  88. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  21*7 

necessity  of  the  case,  could  not  be  sustained  against  the 
Unitarian  objections.  "  If  Christendom,"  he  accord- 
ing]}^ says,  "  would  extirpate  the  Unitarian  heresy,  let 
a  concentrated  blow  be  aimed  at  the  major  proposition 
of  its  upholding  syllogism.*  Wrest  from  it  its  earth- 
woven  mantle  of  the  divine  impassibility.  Strip  it  of 
its  armor  of  proof.  That  Christ  suffered  in  his  united 
natures,  is  a  position  deeply  imbedded  in  the  everlast- 
ing truth  of  Sacred  Writ.  The  hypothesis  of  God's 
impassibility,  has  no  foundation  in  his  Holy  Word. 
Divine  impassibility  is  the  chief  corner-stone  of  the 
Unitarian  faith.  Eemove  that  corner-stone,  and  the 
whole  structure  will  totter  to  its  foundation."f 

Not  so  fast,  we  should  be  tempted  to  say  to  our  au 
thor,  were  he  living.  "Divine  impassibility"  is  not 
"  the  corner-stone  of  the  Unitarian  faith."  We  recog- 
nize with  St.  Paul  no  "other  foundation  than  that  is 
laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ"  ;  and  we  claim,  as  he  else- 
where expresses  himself,  to  have  "built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  C0RNER-ST0isrE.":|:  But, 
supposing  "  Divine  impassibility"  were,  as  you  allege, 
"  the  corner-stone  of  the  Unitarian  faith" — who  laid  it  ? 
It  has  been  and  is,  by  your  own  showing,  ''  the  preva- 
lent theory"  of  Christendom,  from  the  time  of  Athan- 
asius  in  the  fourth  century  to  this.  His  "brilliant 
name,"  you  say,  joined  to  the  "confident  pretensions" 
of  his  " bold  hypothesis,"  "seems,  for  near  fifteen  cen- 
turies, to  have  dazzled  the  mental  vision  of  the  wisest 

*  Namely,  "  it  is  not  '  fitting  to  God'  to  suffer."  f  P.  310. 

X  1  Cor.  3:2;  Eplies.  2  :  20. 

10 


218  THE  ATONEMENT. 

and  the  best."*  "We  take  and  apply  it  just  as  you 
have  done,  to  what  you  state  to  be  the  Orthodox  claim 
for  the  Atonement  made  by  Christ  in  his  sufferings  and 
death,  namely,  that  it  was,  as  the  case  demanded,  an 
Infinite  Atonement ;  and,  this  being  the  test,  both  with 
yourself  and  us,  that  claim,  as  you  see  in  common  with 
us,  cannot  abide  it.  In  this  last  analysis  it  is  found 
wanting.  God  being  "  impassible,"  only  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus  made  the  Atonement ;  and  then,  of  course, 
it  must  be  finite,  and  could  be  no  more.  The  fact  is, 
tliat  Mr.  Grif&n  evidently  felt  the  force  of  the  sentence 
quoted  above  from  Channing ;  and  which,  though  he 
called  and  would  fain  make  it  appear  a  mere  "  Unitarian 
taunt,"  he  knew  under  the  circumstances  had  the 
weight  of  an  argament.f 

*  P.  43.  Before  Athanasius,  the  Patripassian  theory,  so  called  from 
its  teaching  that  the  Father  himself  became  man,  hungered,  thirsted, 
siiflfered,  and  died  in  Christ,  had  been  broached  and  advocated  by 
Praxeas  ^nd  others  in  the  second  century. 

f  How  far  Mr,  Griffin's  views  have  been  accepted  by  the  Orthodox, 
I  have  not  been  careful  to  inquire.  Prof.  Tayler  Lewis,  in  an  elaborate 
review  of  Mr.  G.'s  book,  from  which  I  have  before  quoted,  (Bibl. 
Repos.  3d  series,  vol.  2,  p.  381  et  soq.,)  while  "  confessing  a  strong  in- 
ciiuation  towards"  his  theory  "in  some  of  its  features,"  says  he  is  "not 
ashamed  to  admit  an  exceeding  strong  reluctance  to  adopt  any  senti- 
ment, on  these  mysterious  subjects,  which  may  even  seem  to  be  at 
variance  with  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church."  Afterwards  his 
own  language  seems  sufficiently  strong.  "  It  may  be  maintained,  how- 
ever, that  the  Church  has  most  distinctly  held,  Avithout  any  figure,  or 
any  merely  constructive  use  of  language,  that  God  did  come  down  to 
earth,  that  he  did  humble  himself,  that  he  did  become  incarnate,  that 
]ie  was  born,  that  he  did  suffer,  that  he  did  die,  and  that  he  saved  the 
Church  by  his  oivn  Mood.  All  this,  to  be  sure,  is  generally  qualified  by 
a  scholastic  hypothesis,"  (the  "  Athanasian,"  as  Mr.  G.  calls  it,  and 
against  which  he  contends,)  "yet  still  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  the 


THE  ATOIS'EMEXT.  219 

Finall}^,  we  are  charged,  in  our  rejection  of  the  or- 
thodox doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  with  holding  out 
the  expectation  that  men  are  to  be  saved  bj  their  own 
holiness,  or,  as  more  commonly  expressed,  by  their 
own  merits,  rather  than  by  the  merits  of  an  Infinite 
Saviour.  To  this  charge  we  reply,  first,  that  no  Infi- 
nite Saviour — unless  God  Himself,  the  God  and  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  meant,  as  notoriously  He 
is  not— is  shown.  Christ  is  not,  even  by  virtue  of  all 
that  he  suffered,  an  Infinite  Saviour.  As  an  all-suffi- 
cient Saviour,  we  most  gratefully  acknowledge  and 
confide  in  him.  Secondlj^,  it  is  true  that  we  do  not 
rely  on  the  merits  or  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  holy, 
and  blessed,  and  exalted  as  he  is  ;  or  on  any  mystical 

great  truth  unaffected  for  all  such  minds  as  may  be  willing  humbly  to 
receive  the  doctrine,  and  these  explicit  statements  of  it,  whilst  they 
admit  their  incapacity  to  understand  the  philosophy  by  which  it  is 
sought  to  be  made  consistent  with  other  theories.  No  theologian  who 
has  any  reputation  for  soundness  would  venture  t©  say  that  this  lan- 
guage has  been  used  figuratively,  or  by  way  of  accommodation.  There 
is,  in  some  way,  a  most  important  reality  in  the  affirmation,  that  God 
did  suffer,  which  we  had  better  receive  without  explanation  than  not 
to  receive  at  all.  He  who  maintains  it  in  its  most  literal  sense,  and  re- 
jects all  quahfication,  is  certainly  nearer  the  universally  received  ortho- 
dox faith,  than  one  who  regards  the  sufferings  of  the  Redeemer  solely 
in  their  human  relation."  Though  "  the  Church"  has  "  held"  all  that 
Dr.  Lewis  alleges  that  it  has,  it  has  still  "  held"  it  in  such  a  way,  that 
when  pressed  by  Unitarian  objections,  the  language  used  proved  a 
sham.  "  God  did"  not  "  suffer" — "  He  did"  not  "  die."  Christ  suffered 
—  Chriat  died,  in  his  human  nature,  as  man.  The  Scripture — and  this 
we  take  to  be  authority  paramount  to  "  the  Church" — nowhere  says 
that  God  either  suffered  or  died,  when  our  Lord  was  in  agony  or  ex- 
pired on  the  Cross.  This  is  beyond  contradiction.  "Scholastic"  the- 
ology has  refined,  and  speculated,  and  gone  wide  away  f-om  Scripture, 
till  it  has  got  far  beyond  its  depth. 


220  THE  ATONEMENT. 

efficacy  of  his  mere  blood,  or  sufferings,  or  death,  or 
Cross ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  we  do  not  rely  upon 
or  trust  to  any  merits  or  righteousness  of  our  own. 
"  We  have  not  so  learned  Christ."  We  are  not  silly 
or  weak  or  impious  enough,  to  suppose  this  the 
alternative  ;  to  think  of  presenting  any  claim  to 
the  eternal  blessedness  of  Heaven,  on  the  ground  of 
any  virtue,  goodness,  righteousness,  holiness  of  ours, 
imperfect  as  it  must  be  at  the  best,  if  even  the  achieve- 
ment of  a  full  century  of  years.  And  yet,  that  bless- 
edness is  the  promise  of  God  through  Christ ;  and  on 

It  seems  plain  enough  that  Dr.  Lewis  has  a  strange  hankering  after 
Mr.  G.'s  position,  and  could  he  take  it,  would.  But  he  cannot,  and 
therefore,  "in  conclusion,"  he  says  :  "  There  are  exceptions  which  we 
might  take  to  a  good  many  passages.  We  cannot  at  all  agree  with  the 
author's  extreme  view  respecting  the  death  of  Christ.  It  seems  suffi- 
cient, (!)  even  on  his  own  theory,  to  regard  the  Divine  Person  as  actu- 
ally suffering  the  agonies  which  attended  the  separation  of  the  human 
soul  from  the  body,  without  regarding  him  as  laying  down  his  Divine 
life."  Still,  he  "  cannot  help  regarding  it  as  a  most  timely  and  valu- 
able production." 

In  one  place  in  the  extract  given  above.  Dr.  Lewis  seems  to  cling  to 
the  reading  "  God"  in  Acts  20 :  28.  How  can  he,  in  face  of  the 
overwhelming  mass  of  testimony  against  it,  and  in  favor  of  "  the 
Lord''  ?  Does  he  not  know  that  this  latter  reading  can  be  traced  to 
the  time  of  Iranseus  in  the  second  century ;  and  is  found  in  all  the 
most  ancient  and  valuable  mss.  as  far  back  as  the  Cambridge  and  the 
Ephraem  both  of  as  high  antiquity  as  the  fifth  or  sixth  century,  the 
Alexandrine  of  the  sixth,  and  Abp.  Laud's  of  the  seventh  or  eighth  ?  I 
say  nothing  of  the  Greek  mss.  of  less  note,  or  of  the  oldest  versions,  or 
the  Fathers,  which,  in  a  vast  majority,  sustain  it.  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith,  in 
his  "  Scripture  Testimony,"  speaks  of  "  this  remarkable  consent  of  all 
the  chief  authorities."  Olshausen  says  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  the 
"  genuineness"  of  the  common  reading  "  consistently  with  the  critical 
authorities"  ;  and  declares  that  '■'■all  recent  critics  recognize  '  the  Lord' 
as  the  right  one."  I  cannot  swell  this  note,  already  so  extended,  but 
refer  back  to  p.  94  in  Lect.  IV. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  221 

that  promise  we  rely  as  confidently  as  thongli  God, 
from  the  parted  heavens,  audibly  declared  it.  Our 
trust  is  in  the  free  and  unpurchased  grace,  favor,  mercy, 
love  of  God  in  Christ ;  in  his  holy  word  declared  by 
our  Lord.  Better,  surer  ground  of  trust  we  ask  not, 
for  none  better  or  surer  could  we  have.  But  we 
insist,  also,  on  the  authority  of  both  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, that  from  the  first  God  has  made  Eepentance, 
Newness  of  Life,  Personal  Holiness  and  Faith,  all  of 
them,  indispensable  conditions  of  Forgiveness,  Accept- 
ance, Salvation.  Even  after  the  death  of  our  Lord, 
after  his  atonement  had  been  made,  remember,  the 
Apostle  Paul  declared  that  "God  will  render  to 
every  man  according  to  his  deeds"  ;  and  James,  that 
"  Faith  without  works  is  dead."''^  All  this  is  just  as 
true,  just  as  living  and  abiding  truth,  since  Christ 
came,  and  suffered,  and  died,  and  did  all  that  he  has  done 
—  and  he  has  done  all  that  God  required  or  man 
needed — as  before.  Eeverently  be  it  said,  that  those 
conditions,  not  even  he,  the  Anointed  of  God,  could 
have  done  away.  No  minister  of  his  Gospel,  however 
orthodox,  whatever  his  theory  of  the  Atonement, 
whatever  ef&cacy  he  may  ascribe  to  the  Cross  of  Christ, 
will  dare  deny  the  Scripture  declaration — "without 
holiness  no  man  can  see  the  Lord"  !  "What  becomes, 
then,  of  this  constantly- vaunted  sole  reliance  on  an 
alleged  Infinite  Atonement  ! 

The  Cross  of  Christ !     Blessed  seal  which  the  Sa- 
viour set  to  all  that  his  life,  teachings,  works,  solemn 


*  Ezek.  18  :  30  et  seq.  ;  Matt.  7:21;  Acts  20  :  21  ;  26  :  20  ;  Rora. 
2:6;  James  2  :  26. 


222  THE  ATONEMENT. 

warnings,  appeals  and  promises,  exhibited,  revealed, 
enforced  !  The  Cross  of  Christ  !  from  which  men 
shonld  learn  the  odiousness  of  that  sin  which  made 
necessary  so  stupendous  a  sacrifice  ;  which  proved  his 
entire  self- surrender  and  obedience  to  the  will  of  his 
Father,  his  perfect  trust  and  faith,  patience  and  resig- 
nation. The  Cross  of  Christ !  where  was  illustrated 
the  glory  of  filial  affection  and  of  a  holy  friendship,  of 
unparalleled  magnanimity  in  forbearance  under  all  in- 
jury and  insult,  and  in  forgiveness  of  his  enemies  in 
their  very  act  of  mocking  and  murdering  him.  The 
Cross  of  Christ !  where  an  unwavering  fortitude,  and 
calm,  composed,  fervent  piety  and  devoutness  of  spirit, 
filled  and  glorified  and  closed  the  scene.  God  be 
thanked,  when  all  else  has  failed,  that  throughout  the 
ages  which  have  followed  our  Lord's  ascension,  the 
contemplation  of  that  Cross  has  sent,  and  will  continue 
to  send  through  all  ages  to  come,  a  vast  and  beneficent 
moral  power  into  the  hearts  of  men  !  If  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  goats  under  the  Mosaic  Law  cleansed  from 
all  outward  ritual  and  legal  uncleanness,  how  much 
more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  that  great  sacrifice  of 
himself,  in  which  he  gave  the  last  and  highest  proof 
of  obedience  to  the  Father's  will,  and  which  was  made 
for  our  sakes,  by  its  solemn  appeal  to  our  sensibility 
and  our  gratitude  "  cleanse  our  consciences"  from  all 
moral  and  spiritual  uncleanness  and  sin  ;  keep  us  from 
all  further  transgression,  and  reconcile  us  to  God  I* 

*  See  Hebrews  9  :  14. 


LECTURE    X. 

concluding  lectuee — antiquity  and  history  of 
unitarianIs^i. 

It  is  very  frequently  said,  probal^ly  by  those  who 
are  unaccustomed  to  this  sort  of  investigation  beheved, 
that  Unitarianisni  is  of  very  recent  origin,  a  very 
modern  doctrine.  But  I  af&rm  and  hope  to  show 
that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  very  ancient ;  nay,  the  an- 
cient, original,  primitive  Christianity — the  Christianity 
of  Christ.  TVe  claim  to  be  Christians ;  not  out  of  the 
Church,  but  in  and  of  the  Church,  by  virtue  of  hold- 
ing the  original  faith  of  the  Saviour  and  his  Apostles. 
No  Protestant,  indeed,  of  any  school  or  denomination, 
should  be  satisfied  with  believing  any  thing  less  of 
the  antiquity  of  his  own  faith  as  attested  by  the  Scrips 
tures.  A  Romanist  consistently  may.  The  resort  of 
Tradition  and  the  Custody  of  the  Church  are  open  to 
him ;  and  though  an  alleged  doctrine  be  not  patent  on 
the  face  of  Scripture,  be  not  by  mortals  discoverable 
there,  enough  for  him  that  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Sav- 
iour it  was  deemed  fit  not  to  publish  it  so  early,  but  to 
leave  its  keeping  and  transmission  to  the  Church. 

Hence  we  say,  that  it  is  not  sufficient  merely  to 
proA^e  our  views  to  be  ancient ;  it  is  not  the  most  im- 


224  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITARIANISM. 

portant  thing.  They  must  be  shown  to  be  identical 
with,  nay,  the  very  and  express  teaching  of  Christ  and 
of  his  Apostles.  They  must  be  throughout  Scriptural ; 
squaring  with  Scripture  in  all  their  statements ;  and 
this  is  what  I  have  aimed  at  showing  Unitarianism  to 
be.  I  know  not  a  point  which  is  peculiar  to  Uni- 
tarianism, or  serves  to  distinguish  it  from  the  popular 
theology,  which  cannot  be  expressly  stated  in  the  re- 
corded words  of  the  Kew  Testament.  Not  so  with 
Orthodox}^  Kot  a  Crged  in  Christendom  which  ex- 
presses its  peculiarities  is,  or  possibly  can  be,  stated  in 
the  language  of  Scripture.  Attempt  to  state  those 
peculiarities  in  that  language,  and  agree  to  hold  by  the 
statement  when  done,  and  you  will  soon  find  yourself 
committed  to  simple,  u.nqualified  Unitarianism. 

For  what,  exactly  stated,  is  Christian  Unitarianism, 
but  belief  in  the  strict,  personal  Unity  of  God ;  in 
One  God,  the  Father — the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Whoever,  therefore,  accrediting 
at  the  same  time  the  special  Divine  Mission  and  Au- 
thority of  Christ,  believes  that,  is  a  Unitarian  Christ- 
ian. But  all  Christians  agree  in  holding  the  Unity  of 
God.  True.  But,  in  our  view,  the  Unity  is  strictly, 
really,  simply  Unity ;  nothing  more,  nothing  less : 
while  in  the  Trinitarian  view  it  is  something  more, 
something  else,  namely, — a  Trinity  in  Unity,  a  Unity 
in  Trinity.  In  this  view  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son 
is  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God ;  in  our  vicAv  the  Fa- 
ther alone  is  God.  Hence  the  controversy.  Again : 
all  Christians  agree  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God.  We  hold  to  that,  and  stop  there.  But  Trinita- 
rians, moreover  hold,  that  he  is,  nevertheless,  very  and 


ANTIQUITY  AXD    HISTOKY  OF   UNITAEIANISM.  225 

eternal  God ;  one  of  three  co-equal,  co-eternal  persons 
in  a  Divine  Trinity.  Hence,  in  another  regard,  the  con- 
troversy. Therefore,  the  work  before  ns  is  this ;  to 
show,  that  neither  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  stated 
in  any  of  the  professedly  Trinitarian  Creeds  of  Christ- 
endom, nor  that  of  the  proper  Deity  or  Godhead  of 
Christ,  was  taught  by  Christ  or  by  his  Apostles,  or 
held  by  the  primitive,  catholic  or  universal  Church. 

The  highest  point  of  Christian  antiquity,  is,  of  course, 
the  era  of  Christ  himself,  the  Divine  Founder  and 
Head  of  the  Church ;  and  of  the  Apostles,  the  men 
whom  he  personally  selected,  called  and  empowered  to 
be  the  heralds  of  the  new  faith.  To  that  we  go  back, 
and  hold  and  affirm,  that  neither  he,  nor  they,  taught 
either  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  co-equal  persons  in 
the  Godhead,  nor  his  own  pro]3er  Godhead  or  Supreme 
Deity. 

Having  already  examined  the  Scriptural  arguments 
of  our  Trinitarian  brethren,  the  texts  or  passages  of 
Scripture  which  they  allege  in  support  of  their  posi- 
tion, I  shall  not  here  repeat  myself,  but  give  a  single 
citation  from  Neander,  the  great  historian  of  the  Church. 
"The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  he  declares,*  "is  ex- 
pressly held  forth  in  no  one  particular  passage  of  the 
New  Testament ;  for  the  only  one  in  which  this  is 
done,  the  passage  relating  to  the  three  that  bear  record, 
(1  John  5  :  7,)  is  undoubtedly  spurious,  and  in  its  un- 
genuine  shape  testifies  to  the  fact,  how  foreign  such  a 
collocation  is  from  the  style  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures."     Higher  authority  on  a  point  of  this  sort, 

*  History  of  the  Ciir.  Church,  (Prof.  Torrey's  Transl.)  vol.  i.  p.  672. 
10^ 


226  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UNITAEIANISM. 

either  on  the  score  of  his  unqnestioned  orthodoxy  or 
his  vast  and  thorough  learning,  those  who  differ  the 
most  from  us  cannot  cite. — From  this  I  turn  at  once 
to  testimony  from  the  History  of  the  Church. 

The  ''Acts  of  the  Apostles"  is  the  first  original  docu- 
ment and  authority  on  which  that  history  rests.  It 
was  written,  be  it  remembered,  by  that  St.  Luke  whose 
"Gospel"  stands  as  the  third  on  the  list  of  our  sacred 
books ;  a  Grospel  from  which  Trinitarians  cite  not  a  sin- 
gle text  in  support  of  their  views.  And,  in  the  "Acts," 
the  only  history  of  the  earliest  period  of  the  Church, 
bringing  it  down  from  the  Ascension  of  our  Lord  for 
about  thirty  years,  to  St.  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome, 
there  is  not  the  remotest  intimation  or  hint  of  either 
of  the  doctrines  in  question,  to  be  pressed  into  their 
service.  We  are  thus  brought  to  the  year  of  our  Lord, 
64,  during  all  which  period,  certainly,  the  Church  must 
have  been  Unitarian. 

Thus  much  is  admitted  by  the  early  Fathers.  They 
unite  in  declaring  that  St.  John  was  the  first  who  even 
approximated  to  teaching  the  proper  Deity  of  Christ. 

Origen,  a.d.  230,  declares  that  "  John  alone  in- 
troduced the  knowledge  of  the  eternity  of  Christ 
to  the  minds  of  the  Fathers."*  In  another  place 
he  calls  the  Grospel  of  John  "the  first-fruits"  (or 
most  valuable)  "of  the  gospels,"  because  "no  one 
taught  the  divinity  of  Christ  so  clearly  as"  he.f  Euse- 
bius,  A.D.  315,  says  that  "John  commenced  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  as  a  part  reserved 
for  him  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  as  if  for  a  superior.":j: 
Chrysostom,  "  the  golden-mouthed,"  lauds  John's  bold- 

*  0pp.  ii,  428.        f   Comm.  in  Johan.  ii.  5.         ^  Eccles.  Hist.  109. 


AXTIQUITY  AST)    HISTOET  OF    UXITAKIAXISil.  227 

ness  and  courage  for  declaring  what  bis  predecessors 
had  only  hinted  at,  and  says  in  reference  to  the  point 
under  discussion  :  ''  John  alone  taught  the  eternal  and 
super-celestial  wisdom."  Again:  "John  first  lighted 
up  the  lamp  of  theology";  and  again,  "Leaving  the 
Father,  he  discoursed  concerning  the  Son  ;  because  the 
Father  was  known  to  all,  if  not  as  a  Father,  yet  as 
Grod,  but  the  Unbegotten  was  unknown."  Still  more : 
"  This  doctrine  was  not  published  at  first,  for  the  world 

would  not  receive  it John,  therefore,  the  son 

of  thunder,  last  of  all  advanced  to  the  doctrine  of  his 
(Christ's)  divinity,  after  those  three  heralds  (the  first 
three  evangelists) ;  and  with  great  propriety  he  fol- 
lowed them,  and  they  went  before,  lightening  a  little 
as  the  lightning  precedes  the  thunder,  lest  bursting 
from  the  clouds  at  once  it  should  stun  the  hearer. 
They  therefore  lightened  the  economy^  or  the  humanity 
of  Christ,  but  he  thundered  out  the  theology'^  ;^  mean- 
ing, the  doctrine  of  the  Grodhead  of  Christ. 

Ambrose,  A.D.  882,  says:  "If  there  be  any  other 
things  which  intimate  to  the  intelligent  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  in  which  he  is  equal  to  the  Father,  John  almost 
alone  has  introduced  them  into  his  Grospel ;  as  having 
drunk  more  familiarly,  and  more  copiously,  the  secret 
of  his  divinity  from  the  breast  of  our  Lord,  on  which  he 
was  accustomed  to  lean  at  meat."t  To  the  same  effect 
might  be  cited  Jerom,  Epiphanius,  and  others;  showing 
that  the  writers  of  those  earliest  centuries  of  our  era 
agreed  that  till  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  the  Divinity,  in 
the  sense  of  the  proper  Deity  of  Christ,  had  not  been 
published  to  the  world,  even  if  known  by  any  of  the 

*  0pp.  vi.  235,  604  ;   viii.  2;  vi.  Ill,  173,  f  0pp.  iv.  3Y4. 


228  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTOKY  OF   UNITAKIANISM. 

Apostles.  N'ow,  Jolm's,  as  it  is  the  last  in  order  of  the 
Four  Gospels,  so  it  was  the  last  written  of  them  all ; 
and  the  date  of  its  composition  brings  lis  down  to  a.d. 
68,  or  four  years  later  than  the  Book  of  Acts  ;  to  which 
time  of  course  the  body  of  the  Church  must  have  been 
Unitarian.  By  this  I  mean,  that  for  the  first  sixty- 
eight  3^ears  of  our  era,  the  mass  of  those  who  had  be- 
come converts  to  our  religion  under  the  immediate 
teaching  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Apostles,  knew  no- 
thing either  of  his  proper  Deity,  or  of  the  doctrine  of 
a  Trinity  of  co-equal  Persons  in  the  Godhead.  And 
it  may  be  remarked  in  this  connection,  and  as  confirm- 
atory of  the  ground  I  occupy,  that  early  in  the  fourth 
century,  the  ecclesiastical  historian  Eusebius  —  there 
being  a  chasm  in  the  history  proper  of  the  Church,  or 
at  least  no  detailed  record  of  it  for  a  period  immedi- 
ately following  the  close  of  the  'Acts"  or  A.D.  64 — 
quotes  Hegesippus,  a  Jewish  historian  whose  works  are 
now  lost,  as  bringing  down  the  history  to  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.  This  writer  gives,  according  to 
Eusebius,  a  catalogue  of  the  Heresies  of  his  daj  to  the 
number  of  twelve,  but  not  one  of  them  involved  Uni- 
tarian views.  He  does  not  even  mention  the  Ebionites, 
who  believed  only  the  doctrine  of  the  simple  humanity 
of  Christ.  What  other  inference  can  be  di'awn  from 
such  a  fact,  than  that  it  was  no  heresy,  to  the  middle  of 
the  second  century  at  least,  to  deny  or  reject  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Deity  of  our  Lord  ? 

What,  then,  was  the  faith  of  that  early  Church,  the 
Church  of  the  first  three  centuries,  and  of  the  Fathers 
who  flourished  previous  to,  or  composed  the  Council 
of  Nice,  A.D.  325  ? 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITAKIANISil.  229 

There  is  no  pretence,  that  before  Justin  Martyr, 
A.D.  140,  any  clear  evidence  lias  come  down  to  us  of 
belief  in  the  early  Church  of  even  the  derived  deity  of 
Christ.  He  was  the  first,  so  far  as  we  can  discover, 
distinctly  to  advance  a  dogma  which  proved  to  be  the 
first  fatal  step  in  departure  from  the  simple,  primitive 
faith.  That  faith  held  Christ  to  be  divine,  only  as  hav- 
ing pre-existed,  or  as  having  been  miraculously  born, 
coming  on  a  divine  mission,  holding  a  lofty  official 
rank  by  the  special  appointment  of  Grod.  But  even 
Justin  held  and  taught  this  dogma  of  Christ's  deity,  in 
a  manner  utterly  at  variance  with  the  modern  idea  of 
the  co-equality  of  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead, 
He  speaks  of  Christ  as  "  next  in  rank"  to  God ;  he 
says,  "Him  we  reverence  next  after  God";  he  de- 
clares, that  "  the  Father  is  the  author  to  him  both  of 
his  existence  and  of  his  being  powerful,  and  of  his  be- 
ing Lord  and  God."  Emphatically — "  I  say,  that  he 
never  did  anything  but  what  that  God  tvho  made  all 
tJiings,  and  above  whom  there  is  no  God^  willed  that  he 
should  do  and  say."*  Irenaeus,  a.d.  178,  says  :  "All 
the  Evangelists  have  delivered  to  us  the  doctrine  of 
One  God,  and  One  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  And 
again  :  "  The  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ...  of 
Him  it  is  that  Paul  declared  :  '  There  is  One  God,  even 
the  Father,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in 
us  all.'  "f  Clement  of  Alexandria,  at  the  close  of 
the  second- century,  calls  the  Father  alone,  "without 
beginning" ;    and  in  immediate  connection  describes 

*  Apol.  i.  p.  63,  Dial.  c.  Trypho.  pp.  252,  282. 
f  Lib.  ii.  cap.  3  ;  iii.  cap.  1. 


L30  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTOEY  OF   UNITAEIANISil. 

the  Son,  as  "  tlie  beginning  and  first-fruits  of  things, 
from  whom  we  mnst  learn  the  Father  of  all,  the  most 
ancient  and  beneficent  of  beings."'^  In  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century,  we  find  Tertullian  saying :  "If 
the  Father  and  the  Son  are  to  be  named  together,  I 
call  the  Father  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  Lord ;  though 
I  can  call  Christ  God,  when  speaking  of  himself  alone." 
"The  Son  is  derived  from  the  Father,"  he  adds,  "as  the 
branch  from  the  root,  the  stream  from  the  fountain,  the 
ray  from  the  sun."f  Origen,  a.d.  230,  says  :  "  He 
who  is  God  of  himself,  is  The  God  ;  as  the  Saviour 
states  in  his  prayer  to  the  Father,  '  that  they  may  know 
thee,  the  Only  True  God' ;  but  whosoever  becomes  di- 
vine, by  partaking  of  His  divinity,  cannot  be  styled. 
The  God,  but  a  God  ;  among  whom,  especiall}^,  is  the 
first-horn  of  all  creatures J^  And  again :  "  Prayer  is  not 
to  be  directed  to  one  begotten,  not  even  to  Christ  him- 
self; but  to  the  God  and  Father  of  the  universe  alone, 
to  whom  also  our  Saviour  prayed,  and  to  whom  he 
teaches  us  to  pray.":j:  Novatus,  a.d.  251,  says:  "The 
Son,  to  whom  the  divinity  is  communicated,  is,  indeed, 
God ;  but  God,  the  Father  of  all,  is  deservedly  God  of 
all,  and  the  originating  cause  of  his  Son,  whom  he  be- 
gat Lord."§  Arnobius,  A.D.  300,  calls  "  Christ  a  God, 
under  the  form  of  a  man,  speaking  by  order  of  the 
Supreme  God ;"  and  says,  that  "  at  length,  did  God 
Almighty,  the  Only  God,  send  Christ."||  Lactantius, 
A.D.  310,  says :  "  Christ  taught  that  there  is  One  God, 
alone  to  be  worshipped.     Never  did  he  call  himself 

*  Opp  p.  700.  f  Ady.  Prax.  c.  8  ;  c.  13. 

X  Comm.  ii.  p.  47.     Opp.  torn.  i.  222.  §  Cap.  23. 

II  Ad  Cxen.  lib.  ii.  pp.  50,  57. 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UNITAEIANISM.  231 

God,  because  he  would  not  liave  been  true  to  bis  trust, 
if,  being  sent  to  take  away  a  multiplicity  of  gods,  and 
to  declare  One,  be  bad  introduced  another  besides. 
And  because  be  assumed  nothing  to  himself,  that  he 
might  obey  the  commands  of  him  who  sent  him,  he  re- 
ceived the  dignity  of  Perpetual  Priest,  the  honor  of  Sove- 
reign King,  the  power  of  a  Judge,  the  title  of  God.""^ 
We  have  reached  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice  ; 
and  the  series  of  testimonies,  which  I  have  cited  merely 
as  specimens  of  the  manner  in  which  the  anti-Nicene 
and  Nicene  Fathers  expressed  themselves,  is  enough 
to  show  that  they  held  views  impossible  to  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  received  Trinitarian  creeds  of  our  day. 
They  uniformly  subordinate  the  Son  to  the  Father, 
however  they  may  style  the  former  God.  They 
make  him  a  derived  and  dependent  being.  They 
trace  all  his  gifts  and  powers  to  the  Father.  Even  the 
famous  Athanasius  himself,  who  at  the  time  of  the 
Council  was  a  young  man,  and  who,  about  forty  years 
afterwards,  led  the  way  for  establishing  the  equality 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  Father  and  the  Son—"  the 
true  doctrine,"  as  Gregory  Nazianzen  calls  it,  in  his 
Eulogy  on  Athanasius,  "of  the  One  Godhead  and  na- 
ture of  the  Three  Persons" — even  he,  according  to 
Bishop  Bull,  "concedes  that  the  Father  is  justly  called 
the  only  God,  because  He  only  is  without  origin,  and 
is  alone  the  fountain  of  divinity  ."f  Very  learned  Trin- 
itarians acknowledge  the  position  for  whicb  I  am  con- 
tending, in  regard  to  the  theology  of  the  first  three 
centuries.     Bishop  Bull,  whose  Defence  of  the  Nicene 

*  Inst.  lib.  v:.  c.  13.  f  Def.  Fid.  Nic.  iv.  c.  i.  §  6. 


232  ANTIQUITY  AND   HISTORY  OF   UNITAEIANISM. 

Creed  is  regarded  as  tlie  great  reservoir  of  proofs  for 
the  Trinity  from  Ecclesiastical  Histor}^,  declares,  that 
"  No  one  can  doubt,  that  the  Fathers  who  lived  before 
the  Nicene  Council,  acknowledged  this  subordination," 
that  is,  of  the  Son,  or  the  Son  and  Spirit,  to  the  Father  ; 
and  he  proceeds  "  to  show,  that  the  fathers  who  wrote 
after  this  Council,  taught  the  same  doctrine.""^  Mr. 
Hill  criticised  this  statement,  but  Bishop  Burnet  said : 
"  It  does  not  become  Mr.  Hill  to  find  fault  with  the 
Bishop,  for  having  asserted  that  the  Fathers,  before 
the  Council  of  Nice,  did  conceive  in  the  Trinity  a  Sub- 
ordination, importing  an  Inequality  of  the  two  last  Per- 
sons with  the  first.  The  Bishop  has  but  too  many  proofs 
upon  this  Article  ;  and  none  but  those  who  never  read 
the  Ancients,  or  read  them  without  attention,  disown 
it."f  Miinscher,  in  his  "  Elements  of  Dogmatic  His- 
tory," says,  that  "  respecting  the  consummate  perfec- 
tion and  majesty  of  the  Father,  there  was  no  dis- 
agreement among"  the  early  Fathers.;]:  Cudworth  de- 
clares, that  "  the  generality  of  Christian  Doctors^  for 
the  first  three  hundred  years  after  the  Apostles'  times, 
plainly  asserted  the  same  subordination." §  M.  Jurieu, 
the  French  Reformer,  alleges,  with  proof-citations,  that 
the  same  view  was  unanimously  professed  by  the  fa- 
thers of  the  first  three  centuries. || 

In  the  light  of  these  testimonies,  what  was  the  faith 
of  the  Nicene  Council,  three  hundred  and  twenty -five 
years  after  Christ  ?     It  was  virtuall}^  that,  which  had 

*  Def.  Fid.  Nic.  iv.  c.  i.  §  3.  f  Animadv.  on  Hill,  p.  30. 

\  Murdoch's  Translation.  §  Intell.  Sys.  vol.  ii.  p.  4lV. 

I  Past.  Let.  p.  12G.  See  also  Hagenbach,  Hist,  of  Doctrines,  vol.  i. 
p.  129.  , 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITARIANISM.  233 

been  held  from  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  by  all  the 
ante-lSTicene  Fathers.  It  taught,  indeed,  that  the  Son 
was  consuhstantial^  or,  as  the  Creed  reads  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Praj^er,  ''of  one  substance  with  the  Father." 
This  expression,  however,  did  not  mean,  of  the  same  nu- 
merical, identical  substance,  but,  as  Jortin  expresses  it, 
''of  the  same  generical  substance,"  a  sameness  of  kind. 
The  Son  being  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  was 
thus  declared  to  be  of  the  same  divine  nature ;  and  so 
far  there  was  a  natural  equality  between  them.  "  But," 
says  the  Trinitarian  Jortin,  "  according  to  them,  (the 
Nicene  fathers,)  this  natural  equality  excluded  not  a 
relative  inequality ;  a  majority  and  minority^  founded 
upon  the  everlasting  difference  between  giving  and  re- 
ceiving^  causing  and  being  caused.  .  .  .  When  they  said, 
that  the  Father  was  Gbd^  they  meant  that  he  was  God 
of  himself  J  originally  and  underived.  When  they  said, 
that  the  Son  was  God^  they  meant,  that  he  was  God 
hj  generation  ov  derivationy^  "What  is  of  the  same 
nature,^''  said  the  great  advocate  of  that  early  form  of 
Trinitarianism,  Athanasius,  "  is  consubstantial" ;  and 
he  illustrated  it  by  saying,  that  "one  man  is  of  the 
same  nature  with   another,   as  regards  substance."f 

*  Jortin's  Rem.  on  Eccles.  Hist.  ii.  p,  202. 

f  Ep.  ii.  ad.  Serap.  Gibbon,  who  from  his  infidel  position  may  be 
considered  a  disinterested  witness  on  such  a  point,  says,  that  "those  who 
supported  the  Nicene  doctrine,  appeared  to  consider  the  expression, 
of  substance,  as  if  it  had  been  synonymous  with  that  of  nature ;  and 
they  ventured  to  illustrate  their  meaning,  by  affirming  that  three  men, 
as  they  belong  to  the  same  common  species,  are  consubstantial  or 
homoousian  to  each  other.  This  pure  and  distinct  equality  was  tem- 
pered on  the  one  hand  by  the  internal  connection  and  spiritual  pene- 
tration,  which  indissolubly  unite  the  divine  persons,  and  on  the  other, 


234  ANTIQUITY  AND   HISTORY  OF   UNITAEIANISM. 

Fartlier  than  this,  tliat  Council  did  not  go.  Before  it 
sat,  the  liigliest  views  held  by  any  of  Christ,  held  him 
to  be  inferior,  subordinate  to  God,  the  Father.  Hence 
no  co-equal  Trinity,  no  Tii-Personality  in  the  One 
God,  no  Trinity  in  Unity  and  Unity  in  Trinity ;  no 
Supreme  Deity  of  Christ,  as  we  nowadays  hear.  And 
in  this  very  Council,  the  Supremacy  of  the  Father,  and 
thus  the  essence  of  the  Unitarian  faith,  was  after  all 
sustained,  as  we  shall  the  better  see  when  we  come  to 
examine  the  terms  of  the  Creed  itself 

But  this  term,  '^  consubstantial,"  by  and  by  came  to 
signify,  not  simply  sameness  of  nature,  but  individual 
identity.  Accordingly,  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  instead  of  the  Supremacy  of  the  Father,  and 
the  real,  unqualified  Subordination  and  Inferiority  of 
the  Son, — by  virtue  of  which  statement  they  were  of 
necessity  two  distinct  beings, — their  actual  numerical 
identity  was  taught.  How  true  it  is,  as  I  have  before 
had  occasion  to  remark,  and  as  will  appear  still  clearer 
as  I  proceed,  that  systematic  theology  is  but  the  piling 
up  of  doctrines,  nay,  of  mere  human  opinions,  one  upon 
another,  until  the  simple  teachings  of  the  Scripture, 

by  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Father,  which  was  acknowledged  as  far  as 
it  is  compatible  with  the  independence  of  the  Son.  Within  these  li- 
mits the  almost  invisible  and  tremulous  ball  of  Orthodoxy  was  allowed 
securely  to  vibrate.  On  either  side,  beyond  this  consecrated  ground, 
the  heretics  and  the  daemons  lurked  in  ambush,  to  surprise  and  devour 
the  unhappy  wanderer.  But  as  the  degrees  of  theological  hatred  de- 
pend on  the  spirit  of  the  war,  rather  than  on  the  importance  of  the  con- 
troversy, the  heretics  who  degraded,  were  treated  with  more  severity, 
than  those  who  annihilated  the  person  of  the  Son." — Milman's  Gib- 
bon's Hist.  Decl.  and  Fall  of  Roman  Empire.  Boston  ed,  1850. 
vol.  ii.  320, 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   IJNITAEIANISM.  235 

the  Christianity  of  Christ,  is  well  nigh  covered  from 
sight  by  the  accretions  of  human  speculation  ! 

Let  us  now  examine  the  early  Creeds.  And  first, 
though  the  Scriptures  set  forth  no  formal  creed  of  the 
nature  of  those  symbols  of  Faith  which  subsequently 
obtained  in  various  branches  of  the  Church,  and  which 
have  continued  to  be  manufactured  in  modern  times, 
they  do  in  various  passages  enunciate  very  distinctly 
and  emphatically  what  in  this  connection  must  be 
deemed  and  taken  to  be,  fundamental  articles  of  our 
holy  religion.  Ascending,  then,  to  the  highest,  be- 
cause, as  we  believe,  divinely  prompted,  and  authori- 
tative statements  on  matters  of  faith,  those  of  the 
Master  and  Lord  of  Christians,  what  do  we  find  ?  A 
scribe  asked  him  :  "  '  "Which  is  the  first  commandment 
of  all  ?'  And  Jesus  answered  him  :  '  The  first  of  all 
the  commandments  is,  The   Lord   our  God  is  Oxe 

Lord This   is   the   first   commandment. 

....  There  is  none  other  commandment  greater.'  " 
When  the  Scribe  rejoined,  and  "  said  unto  him,  '  Well-, 
Master,  thou  hast  said  the  truth ;  for  there  is  One  God  ; 
and  there  is  none  other  but  He'  " — the  record  proceeds 
to  tell  us  that  "  Jesus  saw  that  he  answered  discreetly, 
and  said  imto  him,  '  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
of  God.'  ""^  In  that  remarkable  prayer  which  our 
Lord  addressed  to  the  Father  just  before  he  went  forth 
to  his  betrayal,  how  explicit  his  language — "  This  is 
Life  Eternal,  that  they  might  know  Thee,  the 
OxLY  True  God,  axd  Jesus  the  Christ,  whom  Thou 
hast  sent  !"f     So  explicit  —  so  luminous  —  so  free 

*  Mark  12  :  29-32.  ■)-  John  17:3. 


236  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITAKIANISM. 

from,  naj,  so  absolutely  precluding  a  thought  of  any, 
the  least  ambiguity  in  itself,  or  doubt  as  to  its  signifi- 
cance on  the  part  of  the  reader,  that  to  attempt  to  ex- 
joound  it,  would  seem  as  absurd  as  "to  gild  refined 
gold." 

From  the  Master,  turn  to  the  disciple.    When  Jesus 
asked,   "'Whom  say  ye  that  I  am?'     Simon   Peter 
answered  and  said,  '  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God.'  "     How  emphatic  the  approval  which 
our  Lord  pronounced  :   "Blessed  art  thou,  Simon,  son 
of  Jonas  !     For  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it 
unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.""^     The 
same  disciple,  on  another  occasion,  addressed  to  his 
Master  these  words  :   "  Thou  hast  the  words  of  Eternal 
Life  :  and  we  believe  and  are  sure,  that  Thou  art  that 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living  God."f     Again ;   his 
Master  had  risen  from  the  dead  and  ascended  to  hea- 
ven ;  and — said  Peter  to  the  wondering  witnesses,  in 
his  speech  at  Pentecost :   "  Therefore,  being  by  the 
right  hand  of  Grod  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the 
Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed 
forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."     He  then  adds 
to  this  language — of  itself  plain  and  significant  enough 
to  the  most  ordinary  mind,  one  would  think,  as  indi- 
cating Christ's  dependence  and  the  Spirit's  also — this 
closing  proclamation :   "  Therefore,  let  all  the  house  of 
Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made  that  same 
■Jesus  whom  ye  have  crucified,  loth  Lord  and  Christ  P^X 
And  yet  once  more — at  Cesarea,  the  same  Apostle  de- 
clared, before  a  Gentile  audience,  that  "  God  anointed 

*  Matt.  16 :  15-1 V.  f  John  6  :  68,  69.  %  ^cts  2  :  33-36, 


ANTIQUITY  AND   HISTOEY  OF   UNITARIANISM.  237 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 

power for  God  was  with  him."^ 

Not  a  whit  less  distinct  was  the  creed  of  Paul.  To 
the  Corinthian  Church  he  writes :  "  Though  there  be 
that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth,  (as 
there  be  gods  many  and  lords  many,)  to  us  there  is  but 
OxE  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things  and  we 
in  Him  ;  and  One  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all 
things  and  we  by  him."f  Again,  to  the  Ephesians  : 
"  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism ;  One  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and 
in  you  all.' 'J  I  cannot  forbear  citing  again,  in  this 
connection,  that  memorable  passage  in  his  first  Epistlo 
to  the  Corinthians,  in  which  it  would  almost  seem  that 
Paul  meant  to  guard  his  readers  against  imagining  that 
Christ's  kingly  office  was  of  independent  and  eternal 
or  perpetual  authority.  *'  Then  cometh  the  end  when 
he  (Christ)  shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to 
God,  even  the  Father  ;  when  he  shall  have  put  down 
all  rule  and  all  authority  and  power.  For  he  (Christ) 
must  reign,  till  He  (God)  hath  put  all  enemies  under 
his  feet.  The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is 
death.  For  '  He  (God)  hath  put  all  things  under  his 
feet.'  But  when  it  is  said  '  all  things  are  put  under 
him,'  it  is  manifest  that  He  is  excepted  which  did 
put  all  things  under  him.  And  when  all  things  shall 
be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself 
be  subject  unto  Him  that  put  all  things  under  him, 
that  God  may  be  all  in  all."§ 


*  Acts  10 :  38.  f  1  Ep.  8  :  5,  6.  ;{:  4  :  5,  6. 

§1  Epistle  15:  24-28. 


238  A^T^IQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UXITAKIANISM. 

Finally,  when  the  Chamberlain  of  the  Ethiopian 
Queen  was  converted  by  Philip,  he  asked :  "  What 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?"  And  the  reply  of 
Philip  was  :  "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart, thou 
may  est."  And  the  Creed,  the  confession  of  faith 
which  he  made  and  Philip  accepted,  was :  "I  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  !"  That  was  all. 
ISTo  Trinity,  no  Godhead  of  Christ,  or  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Nor  is  either  of  these  things  to  be  found,  or  in 
the  remotest  way  hinted  at  or  shadowed  forth,  in  any 
of  the  words  of  our  Lord  or  his  discij)les  which  I  have 
cited.  ISTay,  no  words,  his  or  theirs,  can  be  cited  from 
Holy  Writ,  contradictory  to,  or  at  variance  with  them. 
His  divine  Sonship,  Messiahship,  Kingship,  Lordship, 
are  expressly  claimed,  recognized,  declared ;  but  never 
his  Godhead  or  Deity,  in  these  Scriptural  Creeds  or 
Statements  of  Faith. 

True,  as  the  word  is  commonly  used — a  use,  by  the 
way,  which  has  excited  a  very  unhappy  prejudice,  I 
often  think,  against  the  thing — there  are  in  the  New 
Testament  no  Greeds.  Our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  pre- 
scribed no  set  Articles  of  Faith,  no  carefully-drawn 
Symbol,  to  be  through  all  time  subscribed  and  trans- 
mitted as  of  binding  authority  upon  his  Universal 
Church.  We  find  here  and  there  a  "(7rec/o,"  an  ^^  Ihe- 
Ziet'e,"  in  which  an  individual  expresses  his  faith  in 
"the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  and  a  ''Blessed  art 
thou"  follows  it.  But  nothing  beyond,  except  that  it 
is  placed  on  the  holy  record  and  sent  down  the  stream 
of  time,  for  the  example,  instruction,  guidance  of  after 
ages.     When,  however,  we  leave  the  Scriptures,  and 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITAEIANISM.  239 

open  the  History  of  tlie  ChurcTi  after  the  age  of  inspira- 
tion and  miracle  had  passed,  we  at  once  meet  with 
Creeds,  Symbols,  Declarations  of  Faith  ;  mostly  drawn 
np  and  voted  in  by  Greneral  Councils,  as  they  were 
called,  summoned  together  by  the  edict  of  an  Emperor  ; 
who,  though  styled  Christian,  knew  as  much,  and  often 
cared  as  much  about  the  merits  of  the  discussion,  as  the 
most  stupid  slaves  at  his  feet.  These  Councils  were  to 
settle  the  points  in  dispute,  and  establish  the  faith  of 
the  Church.* 

*  How  far  deference  should  be  paid  to  the  decisions  of  such  Councils 
my  readers  may  be  aided  in  judging  by  the  following  extract  from  Dr. 
Jortin,  one  of  the  lights  of  the  English  Establishment,  of  course  a 
Trinitarian,  but  a  most  candid  and  able  writer. 

"  Consider  a  little  by  what  various  motives  these  various  men  may  be 
influenced ;  as,  by  reverence  to  the  Emperor,  or  to  his  Councillors  and 
favorites,  his  slaves  and  eunuchs  ;  by  fear  of  offending  some  great  Pre- 
late, as  a  Bishop  of  Rome  or  of  Alexandria,  who  had  it  in  his  power  to 
insult,  vex,  and  plague  all  the  bishops  within  and  without  his  jurisdic- 
tion ;  by  the  dread  of  passing  for  heretics,  and  of  being  calumniated, 
reviled,  hated,  anathematised,  excommunicated,  imprisoned,  banished, 
fined,  beggared,  starved,  if  they  refused  to  submit  ;  by  compliance 
with  some  active,  leading,  and  imperious  spirits,  by  a  deference  to  a 
majority,  by  a  love  of  dictating  and  domineering,  of  applause  and  re- 
spect, by  vanity  and  ambition,  by  a  total  ignorance  of  the  question  in 
debate,  or  a  total  indifference  about  it,  by  private  friendships,  by 
enmity  and  resentment,  by  old  prejudices,  by  hopes  of  gain,  by  an  in- 
dolent disposition,  by  good  nature,  by  the  fatigue  of  attending,  and  a 
desire  to  be  at  home,  by  the  love  of  peace  and  quiet,  and  a  hatred  of 
contention,  etc. 

"Whosoever  takes  these  things  into  due  consideration,  will  not  be 
disposed  to  pay  a  blind  deference  to  the  authority  of  General  Councils, 
and  will  rather  be  inclined  to  judge  that  '  the  Council  held  by  the 
Apostles  was  the  first  and  the  last  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be 
affirmed  to  have  presided.'     ....     If  such  Councils  make  right- 


240         ANTIQIHTY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UNITARIANISM. 

Before,  however,  the  age  of  these  Councils,  we  find 
in  Irenaaus  of  Lyons,  who  flourished  near  the  close  of 
the  second  century,  and  in  TertuUian  of  Carthage  a 
few  years  later,  statements  of  the  ancient  faith  largely 
resembling  those  of  what  is  commonly  called  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed.  That  Creed  in  form,  is  not  found  earlier 
than  in  Kufinus  of  Aquileia  at  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century,  who  transmitted  a  tradition  which  had  reached 
him,  that  it  was  actually  composed  by  the  Apostles 
before  they  separated  to  their  missionary  work.  The 
tradition  kept  its  hold  on  the  Latin  Church  till  the 
Keformation,  when  its  Apostolic  origin  began  to  be 
questioned  by  Erasmus  and  others,  and  now  in  the 
words  of  Sir  Peter  King,  'All  learned  persons  are 
agreed,  that  it  was  never  composed  by  the  Apostles."* 
It  is  as  Bunsen  expresses  it,  "  an  epitome  of  the  lead- 
ing facts  related  in  the  Gospel  as  to  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit."  He  adds  :  "It  has  no  value  but  its  faith- 
fulness, and  no  authority  but  that  of  its  origin.  Still 
the  point  round  which  these  epitomised  elements  have 
crystallised  is  that,  which  constitutes  the  whole  doc- 
trinal consciousness  of  the  ancient  Church  :  the  belief 
in  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit. 

This,  in  the  mind  of  the  Primitive  Church,  was  the 
only  real  doctrinal  point  respecting  which  the  his- 
torical records  of  Christianity  are  in  the  highest  sense 
authoritative.  Again  he  says :  "  The  most  remark- 
able and  important  character  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  is 


cous  decrees,  it  must  have  been  by  strange  good  luck." — Notes  on 
Eccles.  History,  vol.  ii.  183-4. 

*  Const,  of  the  Prim.  Church,  Pt.  ii.  p.  5*7. 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    U2fITAKIAXISiI.  241 

consequentlj  this,  that  it  purports  to  be  nothing  but 
an  epitome  of  the  New  Testament  based  upon  the  be- 
lief in  that  divine  threefoldness.""^  Mark  that  word 
of  this  most  learned  scholar,  and  competent  critic, 
the  Chevalier  Bunsen  —  ^^  threefoldness'^  —  nay,  "divine 
threefoldness"  ;  and  he  a  Trinitarian.  If  this  "  divine 
threefoldness"  be  all  that  is  required  to  be  believed  in 
order  to  be  orthodox,  Unitarians  should  be  esteemed 
such.  Nay,  here  is  just  the  point.  We  never  have 
disputed  this  "  divine  threefoldness."  What  we  have 
disputed  and  denied,  and  what  we  do  still  dispute  and 
deny,  is  the  Trinity  as  held  in  modern  times  and  in 
our  own  day,  in  the  fbrms  of  Tri-unity,  Tri-personal- 
ity,  a  Trinity  in  Unity  and  Unity  in  Trinity,  in  the 
G-odhead.  We  deny  that  according  to  the  teachings 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  God  exists  in  Three  co-equal, 
co-eternal  Persons.  We  affirm  that  He  exists  in  One 
Person,  revealed  by  our  Lord  as  the  Father.  All  the 
while  we  assent  to  and  believe,  with  the  Supreme  Deity 
of  the  Father,  the  divinity  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  We  take  up,  then,  the  so-called  "Apostles' 
Creed,"  admitting  it  to  be  the  most  ancient  formal 
creed  extant — and  what  does  it  say  ? 

"  I  believe  in  Grod,  the  Father  Almighty ;  and  in 
Jesus  Christ  His  only-begotten  Son,  our  Lord ;  who 
was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  was 
crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate ;  buried ;  arose  from 
the  dead  on  the  third  day  ;  ascended  to  the  heavens, 
and  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  whence  he 

*  Hippolvtus,  vol.  ii.  p.  93. 
11 


242  A:t^TIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UNITARIANISM. 

will  come  to  judge  the  living  and  tlie  dead ;  and  in 
tlie  Holy  Spirit;  the  holj  Church,  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body." 

This  is  the  form  given  by  Dr.  Murdoch  in  a  note  to 
his  edition  of  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,*  as 
"  the  common  form  of  it  in  the  fourth  century"  ;  and 
where  will  you  find  in  it  a  word,  a  hint,  of  any  thing 
contrary  to  Christian  Unitarianism  ?  You  cannot. 
It  is  simply  and  entirely  Unitarian.  The  ''  divine 
threefoldness"  is  there  ;  but  "  the  Father  Almighty"  is 
alone  styled  "  God."  Not  a  word,  not  a  hint  of  the 
Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  of  the  Deity  of 
Christ,  who  is  described  as  "  the  only-begotten  Son"  of 
God,  and  "  our  Lord."  Coleridge  thought  it  "  might 
be  possible  to  deduce  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity" from  it ;  but  admitted,  that  "  assuredly  it  is  not 
fully  expressed  therein."  .  .  "It  has,"  he  says  in 
another  place,  "  it  appears  to  me,  indirectly  (why  not 
directly  ?)  favored  Arianism  and  Socinianism."f  Well 
is  it  remarked  by  Mr.  Wilson — "A  Trinity,  such  as  is 

*  Vol.  i.  p.  80.     It  is  remarkable  that  in  the  notices  of  it  in  Ire- 
nseus,  and  Tertullian  a  little  later,  the  first  clause  invariably  reads 
*'  One  God." — Sir  Peter  King  says,  that  "in  all  the  most  primitive 
Creeds  (he  means  forms  of  this  creed)  whether  Latin  or  Greek,  this 
article  runs  "  I  believe  in  One  God"  or  "in  the  Only  God."     (Hist. 
Apostles'  Creed,  p.  50.)     So  Bishop  Pearson,  Exposition  of  the  Creed, 
Art.   i.  p.   32.      Bunsen  gives  us  the  following,   as  the  "Primitive 
Form"  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Creed  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  of 
which  Church  Athanasius  was  at  a  later  period  bishop : 
"  I  beUeve  in  the  only  true  God,  the  Father  Almighty  : 
And  in  his  only-begotten  Son  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  and  Saviour : 
And  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Giver  of  Life." — Hippolytus,  vol.  ii.p.  97. 
f  Works,  vol  ii.  pp.  229. 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTOIIY  OF    UNITARIANISM.  243 

acknowledged  by  Christian  Unitarians,  may  be  easily 
deduced  from  this  Creed ;  but  how  it  can  be  possible 
to  deduce  from  it  Trinitarianism,  or  a  Trinity  of  Per- 
sons in  the  Grodhead,  is  to  us  as  inconceivable  as  it 
would  be  to  infer  this  dogma  from  the  simple  declar- 
ation of  the  Apostle  Peter,  that  God  anointed  Jesus 
of  Kazareth  with  the  holy  Spirit  and  with  power."* 
Dr.  Bushnell  explicitly  says :  '^  If  we  examine  the 
history  of  these  first  ages,  we  find  them  speaking,  in 
the  utmost  simplicity,  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost ;  but  having  still,  confessedly,  no  speculative 
theory  or  dogmatic  scheme  of  Trinity.  The  word,  in 
fact,  is  not  yet  invented.  ...  If  you  desire  to  see 
4he  form  in  which  they  summed  up  the  Christian  trath, 
you  have  it  in  what  is  called  the  Apostles'  Creed.  This 
beautiful  compend  was  gradually  prepared  or  accumu- 
lated in  the  age  prior  to  theology ;  most  of  it,  proba- 
bly, in  the  time  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.:}:  It  is  purely 
historic — a  simple  compendium  of  Christian  fact,  with- 
out a  trace  of  what  we  call  doctrine  ;  that  is,  nothing 
is  drawn  out    into  speculative  propositions,   or  pro- 

*  John  Wilson's  "Unitarian  Principles,"  etc.  (a  most  valuable  work) 
p.  261.  Prof.  Schaif,  also,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Primitive  Church," 
declares  the  Apostles'  Creed  to  be  "  trinitarian  in  structure" ;  and  says 
that  it  "gradually  grew"  out  of  "  the  trinitarian  baptismal  formula"  ! 
p.  121.  Trinitarians  must  be  hard  pushed,  when  the  mere  juxtaposi- 
tion of  terms,  viz.  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  in  a  paragraph,  is 
used  for  such  a  tremendous  conclusion  as  that  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
which  this  learned  scholar  holds. 

X  So  called,  from  having  lived  and  conversed  with  Apostles.  They 
are  six  in  number ;  Barnabas  the  companion  of  St.  Paul ;  Clement. 
Bishop  of  Rome ;  Hermas ;  Ignatius  Bishop  of  Antioch ;  Polycarp 
"  the  blessed,"  as  Irenseus  styles  him,  Bishop  of  Smyrna  ;  and  Papias, 


244  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITAEIANISM. 

pounded  as  a  dogma,  in  terms  of  science."*  I  repeat 
that  this  Creed  is  strictly  Unitarian;  and  shows,  in 
addition  to  the  other  testimonies  before  brought  from 
the  Fathers,  how  truly  Unitarian  the  early  centuries 
were.  If  there  was  any  Trinity  in  the  Church,  then, 
it  must  have  been  what  Wilson  not  inaptly  terms — 
''  The  Unitarian  Trinity"  ;  the  doctrine  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Grhost,  taught  and  held  from  the 
beginning,  and  held  firmly  by  us  to  this  day  in  "  its 
native  and  beautiful  simplicity,"  and  apart  from  "  all 
vain  subtilties,  all  mysterious  researches,  every  thing 
that  was  beyond  the  reach  of  common  capacities." 
These  are  the  words  of  Mosheim,  attesting  the  fact  that 
the  Apostles'  Creed  comprehended  "  the  Christian  sys- 
tem" as  inculcated  by  its  early  teachers.  Afterwards, 
when  the  historian  comes  to  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century  and  the  great  controversy  which  then  arose, 
his  language  is  very  distinct  and  remarkable.  "  The 
subject  of  this  fatal  controversy,  which  kindled  such 
deplorable  divisions  in  the  Christian  world,  was  the 

the  companion  of  Polycarp.  The  first  in  order  of  the  Christian  writ- 
ers, any  of  whose  works  have  come  down  to  us,  is  Justin  Martyr,  a.d. 
140,  about  twenty  years  after  the  last  above  named. 

*  God  in  Christ,  pp.  286,  287.  Dr.  B.  speaks  of  the  word  "  trinity" 
as  not  "  yet  invented."  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  near  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  was,  as  I  have  before  mentioned,  the  first  to  use  the 
Greek  word  rpid^  ;  "  but,"  Hagenbach  says,  "  not  in  the  ecclesiastical 
sense  of  the  term  "  Trinity."  This  triad  of  Theophilus  was  simply  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  as  they  appear  in  the  "  baptismal  formula,"  and 
in  Paul's  benediction,  2  Cor.  13  :  14.  Near  the  same  time  Tertullian 
at  Carthage  introduced  the  Latin  word  trinitas  ;  which  Uagenbacli 
says,  "  has  a  more  comprehensive  docirinal  import."  Hist,  of  Doctrines, 
vol  i.  p.  128. 


AXriQUITY  AND   HISTORY  OF   UNITARIANISM.  245 

doctrine  of  three  'persons  in  the  Godliead ;  a  doctrine 
whicli,  in  the  three  preceding  centuries,  had  happily 
escaped  the  vain  curiosity  of  human  researches,  and 
been  left  undefined  and  undetermined  by  any  particu- 
lar set  of  ideas."* 

I  pass  now  to  the  Nicene  Creed.  This  was  adopted 
by  the  famous  Council  assembled  by  command  of  the 
Emperor  Constantine  at  Nice,  in  the  year  325.  In  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
the  second  of  the  Creeds  is  often  called  the  Nicene 
Creed ;  but  in  exact  truth  it  is  a  combination  of  the 
Mcene  and  Constantinopolitan  Creeds,  with  some  later 
additions  ;  the  latter  Creed  having  been  adopted  in  the 
year  381.  All  beyond  the  words  "Holy  Ghost"  is 
from  the  latter. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  this  Creed  declares  explicitly 
the  doctrine  of  one  Almighty  God  thus : 

"  We  believe  in  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible."t 

It  then  says  of  the  Son  : 

"And  in  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
begotten,  the  only -begotten  of  the  Father ;  that  is,  of 
the  substance  of  the  Father,  God  of  God,  Light  of 
Light,  true  God  of  true  God,  begotten,  not  made,  con- 
substantial  with  the  Father ;  by  whom  all  things  were 
made,  both  in  heaven  and  in  earth ;  who  for  us  men, 

*  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  pp.  149,  314. 

f  See  the  original  Creed  in  Gieseler's  Text-Book  of  Eccl.  His.  vol.  i. 
p.  29Y.  n.  7.  Harper's  ed.  1857.  "  The  'One  God,'  "  says  Gieseler, 
"  is  here  the  Father  alone,  consequently  the  sameness  of  essence  be 
tween  Him  and  the  Son  is  not  a  numerical  unity  of  essence." 


246  ANTIQUITY  AND   HISTOEY  OF   UNITAEIANISM. 

and  for  our  salvation,  descended  and  was  incarnate,  and 
was  made  man,  suffered,  and  rose  again  on  the  third 
day,  ascended  into  the  heavens,  and  will  come  to  judge 
of  the  living  and  the  dead." 

Eemark,  that  Christ  is  here  expressly,  and  in  exact 
accordance  with  Scripture,  called  "Lord."  Next,  he 
is  said  to  be  "  begotten" ;  a  significant  intimation  of  his 
subordination  to  Him  who  begat.  Next,  he  is  de- 
scribed as  at  most,  "God  of  God  ....  true 
God  of  true  God" ;  and  every  tyro  in  Greek  knows 
that  the  preposition  en  here  rendered  of  expresses  the 
derived  origin  of  the  person  spoken  of,  and  is  often  so 
used  in  the  New  Testament  f  therefore,  God  out  of  or 
from  God — thus  distinctly  marking  his  derived  and  of 
course  subordinate  being.  Next,  "  of  the  substance  of 
.  .  .  .  consuhstantial  with  the  Father."  Now  here 
was  the  very  point  of  dispute  between  Arius  and 
Athanasius  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  to  settle  which 
this  Council  was  called ;  but  even  Athanasius,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  and  whose  party  triumphed,  meant 
only  by  consuhstantial — of  the  same  nature^  but  by  no 
means  individual  oneness  or  identity  .f  This  sameness 
of  nature  constituted  the  only  equality  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son  which  the  Nicenians  asserted.  In  all 
this,  the  inferiority  and  subordination  of  the  Son  is  ap- 
parent ;  and  although  it  be  acknowledged  that  they 
decided  Christ  to  be  God,  they  made  him  nevertheless 
a  derived,  and  not  a  self- existent  God. 

*  See  Robinson's  Lex.  of  N.  T.  p.  243.  Sclileusuer's  Lex.  in  N.  T. 
h.  V. 

\  Yid.  supra,  p.  233.  ^ 


ANTIQUITY  AXD    HISTORY  OF    UNITAEIANISM.  247 

Of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Creed,  in  its  original  form, 
merely  says  :  "  And  (we  believe)  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Nothing  is  said  of  its  deity  or  Godhead.  That  point 
had  not  yet  been  reached.^ 

What,  then,  is*  proved  down  to  the  year  of  our  Lord 
825  ?  First,  that  the  Church,  dovvni  to  the  writing  of 
our  fourth  Gospel,  or  a.d.  68 — the  Church,  as  it  ex- 
isted from  the  beginning,  and  as  it  grew  up  in  the  im- 
mediate charge  of  the  Apostles  of  its  Divine  Founder 
and  Head — knew  nothing  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
of  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  or  of  his  proper,  underived 
Deity.  This,  strictly  speaking,  is  the  only  primitive, 
Apostolic  Church ;  and  this  was  simply  and  purely 
Unitarian.  Next,  that  the  Fathers,  Ante-Nicene  and 
Nicene,  asserted  a  real  subordination,  and  of  course,  a 
real  inferiority  of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  Next,  that 
they  did  not  hold  the  jDroper  eternity  of  the  Son  as 
of  a  real  person,  or  individual,  conscious  being ;  but 
rather,  as  of  an  attribute  or  property  of  the  Father. 
And  lastly,  they  denied  that  the  Son  was  numerically 
or  identically  the  same  being  with  the  Father ;  none 
of  them  holding  any  thing  bej^ond  this,  that  he  had 

*The  original  Creed  closes  with  this  anathema:  "  Those  who  say 
that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  of  God  was  not,  and  that  before  he 
was  begotten  he  was  not,  and  that  he  was  made  out  of  nothing,  or  out 
of  another  substance  or  being,  and  is  created,  is  changeable  or  alter- 
able, the  Catholic  Church  anathematises."  But  Gieseler  remarks  (see 
the  reference  in  the  previous  note) — "Even  here  the  sentiment  that 
the  Son  exists  hy  the  loillof  the  Father,  and  is  less  than  He^  is  not  spoken 
against,"  The  anathema  was  directed  in  the  most  exact  terms  against 
Arius  and  his  party,  who  denied  the  consuhstantialness  or  sameness  of 
nature  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  ;  and  who  insisted  that  he  was  made 
out  of  nothing,  and,  of  course,  though  the  first  and  highest,  a  created 
being. 


248  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITARIANISM. 

the  same  generic  nature  with  the  Father,  that  is,  as  a 
human  child  is  of  the  same  nature  with  his  parent. 
System  or  Creed-making  had  ventured  one  step  towards 
thorough -going  Trinitarianism  —  the  Deification  of 
Christ  in  this  derivative  and  subordinate  sense. 

Councils,  or  Synods,  as  the  Greek  word  is,  were  now 
the  rage.  In  the  fourth  century  no  less  than  forty -five 
were  held,  and  the  strife  of  party  became  as  embittered 
as  that  of  the  worst  modern  political  cabal.^  Constan- 
tine  seconded  the  anathema  of  the  Nicene  Council ; 
banished  Arius  into  a  remote  Illyrian  province ;  ordered 
his  writings  to  be  burned,  and  all  who  possessed  and 
attempted  to  conceal,  or  did  not  at  once  produce  and 
cast  them  into  the  flames,  to  death.f  But  in  three 
years  afterwards  he  recalled  Arius  and  his  friends,  and 
would  probably  have  loaded  him  witJi  honors  had  not  the 
Presbyter  suddenly  died  soon  after  his  return.  His  son, 
Constantius,  who  finally  alone  held  his  throne,  favored 
the  Arian  party.  The  tables  were  now  turned,  but 
persecution  had,  alas  !  only  changed  hands.  "The 
Christian  religion,"  says  a  co temporary  Roman  Histo- 
rian, and  an  eye-witness  and  observer  of  what  was 
doing,  "which,  in  itself,  is  plain  and  simple,  Constan- 
tius confounded   by  the  dotage  of  superstition.     In- 

*  "  Thirteen  Councils  against  Arius,  fifteen  for  liim,  and  seventeen 
for  the  Semi-Arians."  (Jortin,  ii.  210.)  The  Semi-Arians  wished 
"that  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity  should  be  settled  only  in  such 
general  expressions  as  had  hitherto  satisfied  the  Christian  want,  so 
that,  with  regard  to  the  difference  which  divided  the  two  contending 
parties,  nothing  was  to  be  defined,  and  each  might  be  allowed  to  inter- 
pret the  language  according  to  its  own  meaning." — Xeander,  Hist,  of 
the  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  373. 

I  Jortin,  ii.  205. 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UNTTARIANISM.  249 

stead  of  reconciling  tlie  parties  by  the  weight  of  his 
authority,  he  cherished  and  propagated,  by  verbal  dis- 
putes, the  differences  which  his  vain  curiosity  had  ex- 
cited. The  highways  were  covered  with  troops  of 
bishops  galloping  from  every  side  to  the  assemblies, 
which  they  call  Synods ;  and  while  they  labored  to 
reduce  the  whole  sect  (of  Christians)  to  their  own  par- 
ticular opinions,  the  public  establishment  of  the  posts 
was  almost  ruined  by  their  hasty  and  repeated  jour- 
neys."^' For  nearly  a  half  century  Unitarianism,  in 
the  form  of  Arianism,  was  the  established  religion  of 
the  Empire. 

It  was  in  such  a  state  of  things,  as  the  fruit  of  a  con- 
troversy which  rent  Christendom  in  j)ieces,  and  much 
in  accordance  with  the  prevailing  philosophy  of  the 
age,  that  having  established  the  deity  of  the  Son  even 
in  the  qualified  sense  we  have  seen,  the  next  step 
should  be  taken  towards  completing  the  dogma  of  the 
Trinity,  namely,  the  deification  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  was  done,  as  has  been  shown,  at  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  A.D.  881  ;  concerning  which  says 
Mosheim :  "A  hundred  and  fifty  bishops,  who  were 
present  at  this  Council,  gave  the  finishing  touch  to 
what  the  Council  of  Nice  had  left  imperfect ;  and 
fixed,  in  a  full  and  determinate  manner,  the  doctrine 
of  three  persons  in  one  God,  which  is  as  yet  received 
among  the  generality  of  Christians."!  But  Mosheim, 
as  I  have  had  occasion  to  remark  before,  is  too  hasty. 
"The  finishing  touch"  was  much  later.     This  Trinity 

*  Gibbon,  vol.  ii,  p.  330 ;  who  thus  translates  from  Ammianus,  xxi. 
16. 

f  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  326. 
11* 


250  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OP   UNITARIANISM. 

was  a  work  of  time.  A  doctrine  so  mysterious,  so 
self- contradictory,  not  patent  on  the  face  of  Scripture, 
was  only  by  degrees  forced  on  the  faith  of  the  Church. 
The  Nicene  Creed  stopped  with  saying :  "  We  believe 
in  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Creed  of  Constantinople  de- 
clared :  "  We  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and 
Giver  of  life  ;  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father ;  who, 
with  the  Father  and  Son  together  is  worshipped  and 
glorified ;  who  spake  by  the  prophets.""^  Here  dis- 
tinctly appears  the  Personality  of  the  Spirit ;  and  its 
Deity  as  a  joint  object  of  worship.  But  the  Creed 
says  that  it  "proceedeth  from  the  Father"  only;  and 
in  less  than  fifty  years  "the  unity  and  equality  of  the 
persons  which  necessarily  resulted  from  holding  same- 
ness of  essence,"  and  which  "  was  not  fully  acknow- 
ledged at  once  even  by  the  Nicenians,  but  continued 
to  be  more  clearly  perceived,  was  at  last  expressed  by 
Augustine  for  the  first  time  with  decided  logical  con- 
sequence."f  Augustine  died  A.D.  430  ;  and  in  a  little 
more  than  a  century  of  constant  strife  thereafter,  A.D. 
589,  the  third  Council  of  Toledo  added  the  clause, 
"  and  the  Son"  to  the  Creed,  and  anathematised  all  who 
disbelieved  the  doctrine  it  conveyed.  Thenceforth  it 
read — "  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son" ; 
an  alteration  whiclj,  says  Hagenbach,  "  afterwards  led 
to  the  disruption  between  the  eastern  and  western 
Churches." 

Still  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  not 
complete.  But  without  attempting  to  follow  the  growth 


*  Gieseler  gives  the  Creed  in  its  original  Greek  form,  vol.  i.  312,  n. 
35. 

f  Gieseler,  vol.  i.  313.     See  also  Neander,  ii.  pp.  421-423.     Hagen- 
bach, Hist,  of  Doct.  i.  282. 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITARIANISi[.  251 

of  it  through  the  various  and  tedious  disputes  which 
from  time  to  time  contimied  to  arise,  it  is  enough  to 
say  that  "  the  finishing  touch"  was  reserved  for  the 
fourth  Council  of  Lateran,  so  late  as  a.d.  1215 ;  that 
Council  to  which  belongs  the  baleful  preeminence  of 
having  established  the  monstrous  dogma  of  Transub- 
stantiation,  ordered  the  extermination  of  heretics,  and  by 
its  persecuting  edicts,  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Inqui- 
sition. By  such  a  Council  was  the  modern  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  completed,  and  for  the  first  time  by  author- 
ity proclaimed  as  the  faith  of  the  Church ;  that  doc- 
trine, in  the  words  of  Cudworth,  of  a  "Trinity  of 
Persons  numerically  the  same,  or  having  all  one  and  the 
same  singular  existent  essence  ;  a  doctrine  which  seem- 
eth  not  to  have  been  owned  by  any  public  authority 
in  the  Christian  Church,  save  that  of  the  Lateran 
Council  only."" 

Meanwhile,  Unitarianism,  in  its  Arian  form  at  least, 
notwithstanding  the  exterminating  edicts  of  the  Em- 
peror Theodosius,  near  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
and  cotemporaneous  with  the  Council  of  Constanti- 
nople, continued  to  struggle  on  in  the  hearts  of  faithful 
men.  At  length,  about  the  middle  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, under  the  full  and  cruel  effects  of  those  edicts,  it 
for  a  time  sunk  from  observation.  Thenceforward  to 
the  Reformation  in  the  sixteenth  century  were  the 
"  Daric  Ages" ;  during  which  the  power  of  the  so- 
called  Catholic  Church  became  despotic,  and  by  and  by 
rioted  unchecked  in  its  haughty  and  ruthless  career. 

But  the  Reformation  came,  and  in  its  early  years, 
Unitarianism  revived  again  in  Germany,  Switzerland, 
Transylvania,  and  Poland.     The  old  spirit  of  persecu- 

*  Intellcc.  System,  ii.  4S5,  436.     Lond.  od.  1845. 


252  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UXITAEIANISM. 

tion  revived  with  it,  and  some  of  the  Eeformers  were 
its  most  cruel  agents.  Michael  Servetus,  condemned 
to  death  at  Vienna  by  Eomish  Inquisitors,  for  avowing 
and  publishing  it  to  the  world,  fled  to  Geneva,  the  city 
of  Calvin,  only  there  to  be  re-arrested,  and  at  his  in- 
stance, as  a  heretic ;  and  after  a  protracted  trial,  he 
was,  through  Calvin's  influence,  sentenced  to  the 
stake,  and  was  actually  burned  just  without  the  city 
walls  at  Champet,  by  a  slow  fire  of  green  wood.  The 
celebrated  Italians,  Lelius  Socinus,  and  Faustus  his 
nephew,  were  among  its  most  conspicuous  advocates. 
The  latter,  after  his  uncle's  death  at  Zurich,  in  1578, 
was  invited  to  Transylvania,  where  he  found  a  band 
of  disciples  true  to  its  simple  faith.  In  1579  he  estab- 
lished himself  in  Poland,  whose  famous  University 
at  Eacow,  then  in  the  hands  of  Unitarians,  once 
boasted  of  more  than  a  thousand  students  from 
various  parts  of  the  civilized  world,  with  some  of 
the  most  distinguished  European  scholars  in  its 
faculty.  There  he  commanded  for  a  time  an  im- 
mense influence  ;  but  in  1598  was  mobbed,  his 
papers  burned,  and  himself  dragged  through  the 
streets.  Six  years  afterwards  he  died  peaceably  in 
a  retired  village  in  the  vicinity  of  the  ancient  capital 
of  the  kingdom.  His  works,  replete  with  critical 
learning,  fill  two  folio  volumes  ;  and  form  a  part  of 
the  ^^ Fratres  PoloniJ'^  or  ''Polish  Brothers,"  a  collection 
of  theological  writings  by  learned  Polish  Unitarians  of 
that  day,  conspicuous  among  a  large  and  intrepid  body 
of  believers  in  and  defenders  of  Unitarianism  in  that 
country.  These,  in  mass,  were  subsequently  expel- 
led from  Poland,  and  found  refuge  and  a  home  in 
Transylvania.     There  their  descendants  are  found,  and 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITAKIANISM.  253 

faithful  to  their  ancient  faith  to  this  day.  While  in 
Greneva,  the  chair  of  Calvin  in  the  University  founded 
by  himself,  and  the  pulpit  in  which  he  preached,  are 
filled  by  a  Unitarian  Professor  and  a  Unitarian 
preacher  ;  and  Unitarianism  is  the  religion  of  the 
state.  Of  Great  Britain  and  our  own  country  I  need 
not  speak  at  length.  Enough  to  say,  that  added  to 
our  own  Congregational  or  Independent  body  of 
churches  in  either  country,  are  to  be  added  the 
"Christians,"  Universalists,  a  large  division  of  the 
Friends,  the  Swedenborgians,  the  Campbellites,  and  a 
part  of  the  Seventh-day  Baptists  ;  all  Anti-Trinitarians ; 
all  advocates  of  the  strict  personal  Unity  of  God. 

I  trust,  I  have  said  enough  to  show  that  Christian 
Unitarianism  is  not  a  novel,  as  many  seem  to  suppose, 
but  an  ancient  form  of  Christian  faith.  Nay,  we  go 
farther.  We  claim,  that  it  is  the  most  ancient,  the 
Primitive,  the  Apostolic  Christian  Faith ;  the  faith, 
pre-eminently,  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  preached ; 
coeval  with,  nay,  the  original  Christianity.  Our  text- 
book is  that  same  Holy  Bible  to  which  all  consistent 
Protestants  ultimately  appeal ;  while  we  especially  cling 
to  the  New  Testament,  as  distinctively,  pre-eminently, 
authoritatively,  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  to  the 
Universal  Church  of  Christ.  To  that  inspired  re- 
cord, first  and  chiefly;  and  then,  to  Christian  His- 
tory and  Antiquity,  to  the  history  of  the  Church  in 
the  Three  First  Centuries  of  our  era,  Avritten  though 
it  be  by  Trinitarian  scholars  of  highest  note,  do  we 
appeal,  for  the  sanction  and  confirmation  of  our  theo- 
logical position  and  claims.  And  though  far  from 
thinking,  that  great  names  are  any  positive  proof  of 
the  truth  of  any  form  of  religious  belief,  that  surely 


254  ANTIQUITY  AXD    HISTORY  OF    UNITAEIANISM. 

cannot  be  a  despicable  faith  wliicb  liolcis  on  the  roll  of 
its  confessors  and  advocates,  names  like  those  of  the 
discoverer  of  gravitation,  of  the  great  master  of  modern 
intellectual  philosophy,  of  the  sublimest  of  modern 
bards,  and  preachers  and  philanthropists  than  whom 
the  v/orld  has  known  none  greater  or  purer.  Such 
names  as  Newton,  and  Locke,  and  Milton,  and  Chan- 
ning,  are  a  glorj  to  any  church. 

But  it  is  said,  that  we  do  not  agree  on  all  points. 
What  sect,  what  denomination,  what  church,  does  ? 
Perfect  agreement,  entire  uniformity,  is  a  thing  not  to 
be  looked  for.  Unity  of  faith,  on  every  point  contro- 
verted among  believers,  or  which  by  possibility  may 
be  started  by  inquiring  minds,  is  the  merest  dream ; 
unity  of  spirit,  the  only  substantial  and  commanding- 
reality.  "  The  unity  of  the  spirit,  in  the  bond  of 
peace,"  is  that  for  which  all  who  acknowledge  Jesus  to 
be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  should  pray  and  strive. 
Fundamentals — doctrines  which  are  the  foundation,  and 
therefore  the  essentials  of  Christian  faith — are  not, 
surely,  points  of  difference,  but  of  agreement,  among 
those  who  alike  confess  him  to  be  Lord.  They 
are,  they  must  be  those,  which, are  common  to  all 
Christian  believers,  universally  accepted  by  all  in 
every  age  of  the  Church.  Especially  must  this  be 
admitted  by  all  who  stand  on  the  sufl&ciency  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  right  of  private  judgment,  the  car- 
dinal principles  of  the  Eeformation.  We  value  as 
highly  as  any  believers,  the  Christian  name.  We 
cling  to  it  as  tenaciously.  We  claim  it  boldly.  We 
are,  and  of  right  are,  I  repeat,  say  what  others  may,  IN" 
and  OF  the  Church  of  Christ.  That  must  be  a  power 
not  known  in  this  age,  or  this  land,  certainly,  which  can 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UNITARIANISM.  255 

expel  lis.  "We  believe,  we  rejoice  in  Christianity  as  a 
spirit;  but  we  know  as  well,  and  believe  as  strongly, 
what  no  sophism  or  mysticism  can  make  nnll  or  do 
away,  that  it  is  a  iruth^  God's  Truth,  also.  We  desire 
and  pray,  that  we  may  cherish  the  Spirit ;  but  we  will 
hold  and  "  earnestly  contend  for"  the  Truth,  too. 

In  the  serious  and  careful  review  which  I  have 
endeavored  to  take  of  the  topics  before  me,  I  have 
been  gratified  to  find  how  numerous  and  how  great, 
during  my  more  than  thirty  years  in  the  ministry, 
have  been  the  modifications  and  concessions  of  ortho- 
doxy; and  almost  equally  surprised  to  find  my  own 
mind  confirmed  at  every  step,  and  resting  not  only 
with  unshaken  but  with  increased,  nay,  with  the  en- 
tirest  confidence,  in  substantially  the  very  doctrinal 
views  of  the  Gospel  which  I  long  ago  received  and 
preached.  So  far  as  doctrines  are  concerned,  they  are, 
more  and  more  verily  believe,  the  essence  of  that 
Christianity  which  at  the  first  and  from  the  first  con- 
stituted the  Gospel,  the  divinely  attested  and  authorita- 
tive Gospel  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ ; 
simple,  intelhgible,  harmonious,  eminently  practical  and 
Scriptural.  Briefly,  then,  let  me  declare  them ;  and  beg 
those  who  have  followed  me  so  long  and  so  patiently  in 
this  discussion,  to  compare  them  with  Holy  Scripture. 
Christian  Unitarianism  affirms  in  the  first  place — 
That  there  is  One  only  God  ;  that  He  is  one  Person, 
One  Being ;  that  He  is  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  God  and  Father  of  all  mankind. 
It  lays  stress  not  only  on  the  strict  personal  Unity  of 
God,  but  especially  on  His  Divine  Fatherhood.  "  To 
us,  there  is  but  One  God,  the  Father."* 

*  1  Cor.  8  :  6. 


256  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTOKY  OF    UNITARIANISM. 

In  tlie  second  place  it  aifirms — That  Jesus  is  the 
promised  Chkist  ;  the  Divinely-appointed  Messiah  or 
Anointed  of  G^d ;  pre-eminently  the  Son  of  God,  pre- 
eminently the  Son  of  Man :  the  most  distinguished 
Messenger  and  Representative,  the  brightest  visible 
Manifestation  of  the  Invisible  Grod ;  second  only  to 
God  in  the  glory  of  that  office  and  rank  with  which 
He  has  invested  him  ;  one  with  God  by  a  moral  union 
and  harmony  of  wisdom,  will,  holiness,  and  love ;  act- 
ing with  the  delegated  power  and  authority  of  the 
Supreme  ;  by  His  indwelling  Spirit  given  him  without 
measure,  the  infallible  Teacher  of  God's  holy  Truth ; 
and  exalted  with  the  right  hand  of  God  to  be  a  Prince 
and  All-sufficient  Saviour,  to  give  repentance  and 
forgiveness  of  sins.  "To  us  there  is  .  .  .  One 
LoED,  Jesus  the  Chkist."^ 

In  the  third  place  it  affirms — That  the  Holy  Ghost 
or  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  not  a  distinct 
person,  or  person  at  all ;  but  by  and*  through  which, 
God  is  always  present  with  us  and  ready  to  help,  inspire, 
succor,  comfort,  enlighten,  and  sanctify  the  spirits  of 
His  children,  will  they  but  seek  the  precious  Gift.f 

In  the  fourth  23lace  it  affirms — That  all  men  are  born 
innocent ;  free  at  birth  from  all  taint  of  sin  and  guilt, 
as  they  are  destitute  of  holiness  ;  gifted  with  a  nature 
of  glorious  capacities,  but  exposed  to  temptation,  liable 
to  sin,  actually  sinners ;  needing  the  provision  which 
God  in  His  abounding  mercy  has  seen  fit  to  make  in 
the  Gospel  of  His  Son  for  their  regeneration  and  sal- 
vation ;  but  free  to  choose,  and  therefore,  free  to  accept 
or  reject  the  offered  grace. 

*  iCor.  8:6.  f  Luke  11  :  13. 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UNITARIANISM.  257 

In  the  fifth  place  it  affirms — That  the  Atonement^ 
At-one-ment  —  is  the  Eeconciliation  of  man  to  Grod ; 
not  of  God  to  man,  for  that  could  not  be  necessary. 
As  the  Ml-gracions  Fathek,  He  never  needed  to  be 
reconciled  to  his  human  family  ;  but  on  the  contrary, 
as  the  crowning  expression  of  his  exhaustless  compas- 
sion and  boundless  Love,  He  sent  His  only -begotten 
Son  into  the  world,  to  teach  and  bear  witness  to  the 
truth,  to  labor,  suffer,  and  die  for  us,  that  we  might 
live  through  him.*  The  divine  instructions,  the  mi- 
raculous works,  the  sinless  and  perfect  life  and  exam- 
ple, the  sufferings  and  death,  the  Eesurrection,  Ascen- 
sion, and  present  Intercession  of  Christ,  being  all  part 
and  parcel  of  the  means  appointed  in  the  counsels  of 
the  Infinite  Mind,  for  accomplishing  this  great  Eecon- 
ciliation and  Salvation  of  the  world,  f 

In  the  sixth  place,  it  affirms — That  the  Bible  is  the 
History  and  Eecord  of  God's  Eevelations  to  our  race ; 
furnishing,  especially  in  the  New  Testament,  the  Di- 
vine, and  therefore  sufficient  Eule  of  Faith  and  Prac- 
tice to  all  Christian  Believers ;  the  Holy  and  inesti- 
mable Volume,  which  the  Inspiration  and  Providence 
of  God  have  caused  to  be  written,  preserved,  and 
transmitted,  for  the  Eeligious  Instruction  of  mankind 
in  every  succeeding  age. 

Finally,  it  affirms  —  That  the  present  is  a  life  of 
moral  discipline  and  probation,  introductory  and  pre- 
paratory to  a  higher  and  an  eternal  life,  in  which  a 
righteous  judgment  and  retribution  await  all,  and  God 
will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds. 

*  1  Jolm  4:9.  f  Rom.  5  :  10;  8  :  30  ;    2  Cor.  5  :  18,  19. 


258       a:n^tiquity  and  history  of  unitaeianism. 

Thus  mucli  for  the  positive  or  affirmative  side.  But 
while  thus  on  the  one  hand,  in  contradistinction  to  all 
systems  of  mere  Naturalism  or  Eationalism,  Christian 
IJnitarianism  affirms  the  reality  of  God's  last  and  full- 
est revelation  in  and  by  Christ  and  his  Gospel,  and  these 
as  the  chief  and  leading  doctrines  of  that  Grospel ;  on 
the  other,  in  contradistinction  to  the  popular  or  received 
Orthodoxy  of  the  Church,  it  denies  and  rejects  the 
following  dogmas,  viz. : 

1st.  A  Tri-personal  God,  or  Three  co-equal,  co-eter- 
nal Persons  in  the  Godhead. 

2d.  The  Supreme  Deity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ.  It  holds,  asserts,  maintains  as  earnestly 
as  any  form  of  faith  in  the  Christian  Church,  his  Di- 
vinity— ^his  Divine  Mission,  Office,  and  Authority ;  but 
denies  that  he  is  God  over  all,  the  Supreme  and  Eter- 
nal God. 

3d.  The  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
or  Holy  Spirit ;  denying  that  it  is  literally  a  Person  ; 
or  God  in  any  sense,  except  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  is 
the  man  himself 

4th.  The  expiatory,  vicarious,  and  infinite  Atone- 
ment of  Christ ;  with  the  entire  doctrinal  scheme  of 
Calvin. 

Unitarianism  denies  and  rejects  all  these  dogmas,  as 
gross  corruptions  of  the  pure,  simple,  original  Gospel 
of  the  Lord — the  Christianity  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
primitive.  Apostolic  Church. 

Thus  much  for  the  negative  side.  Upon  other 
points,  Unitarians,  recognizing  in  others  and  claiming 
for  themselves  the  right  of  private  judgment,  do  not 
entirely  agree,  viz. : — 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITAEIANISM.  259 

I.  As  to  the  metaphysical  nature  of  Christ. 

1st.  Some  believe  him  to  have  pre-existed,  the  first 
in  order  of  time  of  all  created  intelligences  ; — • 

2d.  Some  believe  him  to  have  been  born  of  Mary, 
but  miraculously  conceived  ; — 

3d.  And  some  rest  on  his  own  declaration  for  the 
present,  and  await  God's  pleasure  for  further  light ; — 
"  N'o  man  (no  one)  knoweth  who  the  Son  is,  but  the 
Father."-^ 

II.  As  to  the  Future  Punishment  of  Sin.  While 
they  agree  in  rejecting  the  popular  belief  in  the  eter- 
nal damnation  of  the  impenitent,  and  all  believe  in  a 
righteous  judgment  and  retribution  hereafter  ; — 

1st.  Some  believe,  that  the  sufferings  or  punishment 
of  the  impenitent  will  terminate  in  their  annihila- 
tion ; — 

2d.  Others,  that  all  punishment  under  the  righteous 
and  benevolent  government  of  God,  must  be  disci- 
plinary and  remedial ;  and  must  finally  result  in  the 
universal  recovery  of  the  lost  to  holiness  and  happi- 
ness ; — 

Finally,  others  believe,  that  while  progress  is  the 
law  of  the  soul,  the  eternal  consequences  of  unfaith- 
fulness here  will  be  realized  hereafter,  in  the  con- 
sciously lower  plane  on  which  the  unfaithful  and  im- 
penitent must  enter,  and  forever  relatively  continue,  in 
"  the  world  to  come." 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  let  me  say  that  this  is 
probably  the  last  time,  in  which  I  shall  be  called 
upon  to  discourse  at  such  length,  on  those  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel  which   are   in  controversy  among  its 

*  Luke  10  :  22. 


260  ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF   UNITARIANISM. 

followers.  I  have  readied  a  period  of  life  whicb,  I 
had  hoped,  would  save  me  from  such  discussions  ;  but 
a  period  also,  I  would  trust,  when  I  could  not  be  be- 
trayed into  that  bitterness  and  asperity  which  is  so  apt 
to  taint  them  as  to  have  become  proverbial.  I  yielded, 
however,  the  more  readily  to  the  request  to  prepare 
these  Lectures,  because  on  the  one  hand,  I  saw  here 
and  there  efforts  making,  to  revive  and  enforce  an  old 
and  effete  orthodoxy,  the  incubus  of  which  the  world 
had  been  by  degrees  throwing  off;  and  on  the  other, 
to  establish  a  cold  and  philosophic  naturalism,  which 
under  the  name  and  prestige  of  Liberal  Christianity, 
seemed  eating  out  its  very  life.  For  one,  I  know 
no  Christianity,  no  Christian  Unitarianism,  without 
Cheist  ;  no  Christ,  except  the  Christ  of  the  'New 
Testament ;  nor,  for  the  sake  of  being  thought  or 
called,  '•''LiheraV^ — that  prefix  which  I  once  prized  as 
much  as  any,  but  which  has  come  to  pander  to  and 
savor  of  "  the  vulgar  love  of  license"  far  too  much 
either  for  my  taste  or  my  convictions — will  I  consent 
to  ignore  or  deny  Him  and  his  divine  claims.  If  it  be 
true,  that  in  everj^  free  country  there  must  be  two 
great  parties,  in  one  or  the  other  of  which  every  man, 
who  thinks  at  all,  must  assuredly  find  himself — "the 
parties  of  Progress  and  Conservatism ;  of  those  who  (too 
often  seem  to)  love  the  'largest  liberty'  with  more  regard 
to  its  quantity  than  its  quality,  and  those  who  desire  only 
the  best  liberty,  and  dread  as  the  greatest  of  evils,  its 
corruption  into  license" — then  is  my  position  with  the 
last,  to  live  and  to  die.  I  see,  I  admit,  however,  no 
sole  and  inevitable  alternative  between  these  two  great 
principles.     Christianity,  I  am  sure,  is  pre-eminently 


ANTIQUITY  AND    HISTORY  OF    UNITARIANISM.  261 

the  Religion  of  Progress ;  bnt  while  it  teaches  us  to 
"  prove  all  things,"  it  demands  that  we  "  hold  fast  that 
which  is  good."  All  speculation  is  not  progress.  De- 
structionism  is  not  progress.  God,  who  made  the  soul, 
has  in  the  Gospel  of  his  Son  provided  for  and  admin- 
istered to  its  grand  capacity  for  illimitable  growth ;  and 
either  to  attempt  to  confine  it  in  the  swathing-bands 
of  inexorable  creeds,  or  to  enlarge  it  by  substituting  a 
refined  Deism  for  God's  Revealed  Truth — a  system  of 
mere  Naturalism  for  that  very  Christianity  to  which 
all  the  while  itself  is  indebted  for  whatever  gives  it  any 
credence  or  worth — seems  to  me  as  preposterous  as  it  is 
futile.  If  the  last  be  progress  at  all,  which  I  deny,  it 
is  progress  in  the  wrong  direction — ''jd^^o^^^^  back- 
wards." 

Besides,  another  generation  has  reached  maturity 
around  me,  demanding  instruction  on  these  sub- 
jects. Two  objects,  therefore,  I  have  proposed  to 
myself,  in  these  Lectures.  First,  to  save  that  Unita- 
rianism,  which  I  believe  so  well  expresses  the  Christ- 
ianity of  Christ,  from  being  confounded  with  erroneous 
opinions  and  views,  which  are  too  often  in  the  com- 
munity wrongfully  identified  with  it,  or  baptized  into 
its  name  ;  and  next,  to  possess  the  minds  and  hearts  of 
the  children  with  a  true  knowledge  and  love  of  the 
holy  and  precious  faith  of  their  fathers ;  and  thus  give 
that  faith  to  the  best  of  my  ability  a  fresh  impulse  in 
its  onward  course.  Should  the  event  prove  that  in  any 
degree  I  have  been  successful,  unto  God  be  the  praise ! 


GENERAL     INDEX 


Adam,  Rev.  "Wm.,  converted  by  Ram  Mohun  Roy,  64. 

Affirmations,  Unitarian,  56,  255,  et  seq. 

Agreement,  points  of,  among  Christian  believers,  187,  199,  205,  206. 

Ambrose  on  Philipp.  2:6;  p.  23  and  n.  ;    Stuart,  ib. 

Antiquity,  not  the  final  test  of  an  alleged  Christian  doctrine,  but  its 
Scripturalness,  235-6. 

Apostles'  Creed,  the,  not  composed  by  them,  240 ;  first  found  in  Ru- 
finus  of  Aquileia  late  in  4th  cent.,  ib.  ;  Sir  Peter  King  on,  ib.  ; 
Bunsen  on,  ib. ;  its  ancient  form,  241 ;  truly  Unitarian,  242  ;  Cole- 
ridge on,  ib.  ;  Bushnell  on,  243  ;  John  Wilson  on,  ib. ;  Prof. 
Schafif  on,  243 ;  Mosheim  on,  244-5. 

Apostolic  Fathers,  the,  who  they  were,  243,  n. 

Arius,  opinions  of,  29  ;  his  dispute  with  Athanasius,  246. 

Argumentum  adho7ninem^  used  in  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews,  195  ;  defined, 
ib.  n. 

Arnobius'  opinion  of  the  deity  of  our  Lord,  230. 

Athanasius  held  that  the  Father  alone  was  unoriginated,  231  ;  defines 
Consubstantial,  233,  246. 

Atonement  of  the  Saviour,  justly  apprehended,  of  the  essence  of  the 
Gospel,  172  ;  orthodox  statements  and  expositions  of,  shown  to  be 
very  diverse,  173,  et  seq.  ;  doctrine  of  Episcopal  Church,  173  ; 
Presbyterian,  ib.  ;  Wardlaw,  174;  Abp,  Magee,  ib. ;  Bp.  Butler, 
175  ;  Prof.  Stuart,  ib.  ;  Prof  Murdoch,  175  ;  Dr.  Woods,  ib.  ; 
Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  ib. ;  Luther,  178  ;  Calvin,  ib.  ;  Rd.  Baxter, 
179  ;  Bp.  Beveridge,  ib. ;  Pres.  Edwards,  ib. ;  Dr.  Watts,  ib.  ;  Dr. 
E.  Beecher,  186  ;  Dr.  Bushnell,  ib.  ;  Prof.  Park,  ib.  ;  History  of 
the  doctrine,  180 ;  three  periods  each  with  a  leading  idea,  ib.  and 
181 ;  four  schemes  among  the  orthodox,  181-2  ;  Unitarian  objec- 


264  INDEX. 

tions,  182-3  ;  Modern  orthodox  concessions,  183-4,  191-2  ;  Dr. 
Ellis,  186  ;  Orthodoxy  in  all  its  forms  makes  Christ's  death  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  man's  forgiveness,  185  ;  hence  the  contro- 
versy, 186  ;  the  Atonement  of  no  avail,  even  on  orthodox  show- 
ing, without  personal  righteousness,  190  ;  Unitarianism  denies  the 
Scriptural  truth  of  the  orthodox  statements  of  the  doctrine,  191 ; 
three  prevalent  views  among  Unitarians,  200,  et  seq. ;  they  allege 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  to  be  God-ward,  and  not  man-ward ;  for 
man  not  to  God,  203  ;  Dr.  Channing,  202  ;  Dr.  Ware,  Sen., '203  ; 
Dr.  Ellis,  203  ;  how  the  two  parties  differ,  191,  204,  205,  201 ; 
how  they  agree,  200,  205,  206  ;  an  Infinite  Atonement  not  needed, 
212  ;  if  needed,  not  shown,  212-14. 
Atonement,  the  word  —  occui-s  but  once  in  our  received  version  of 
N.  T.,  206  ;  how  it  should  read  there,  ib. 


B 

Baptism  of  Christ,  argument  from,  43. 

Baptismal  formula,  argument  from,  43  ;   explained,  ib. 

Benediction,  Apostolic,  argument  from,  44  ;   explained,  ib. 

Bible,  the,  and  its  interpretation,  Stuax-t  on,  60,  61,  132. 

Bull,  Bp.   establishes  the  Unitarianism  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers, 

231. 
Burnet,  Bp.,  232. 
Bunsen,  Chevalier,  on  "  the  Apostles'  Creed,"  240,  241 ;    his  "  divine 

threefoldness,"  241. 


Christ  not  Omniscient,  11 ;  argument  from  his  baptism,  43. 

Divine,  yet  not  God,  65  ;  in  Avhat  sense  God,  73,  74. 

his  inferiority,  etc.,  to  the  Father,  taught  by  the  general  tenor  of 

Scripture,  66. 
his  inferiority,  etc.,  to  the  Father,  taught  expressly  in  N.  T.,  77, 

et  seq. 

how  "Immanuel,"  68. 

his  Deity,  argument  from  0.  T.,  67,  et  seq. 

his  Deity  directly  oj^posed  by  his  own  words,  116  ;   by  his  ApOcJ- 

tle.s',   117. 
Ui,:;cl;ums  Omniscience,  11,  Ti'. 


INDEX.  265 

Christ,  uniformly  distinguished  from  God,  therefore  inferior,  75. 

his  wisdom  derived,  78. 

his  power  while  on  earth  derived,  80;  in  his  exaltation,  81,  82  ; 

as  Judge  of  the  world,  82  ;  always  to  be  "  subject,"  84. 

if  even  proved  to  be  God,  no  Trinity  thereby  proved,  85. 

oneness  of,  with  the  Father,  86,  87. 

who  he  is,  118-125. 

in  what  sense  he  suffered  and  died  for  us,  193-4. 

his  sufferings,  etc.,  not  the  sole  means  of  atonement,  etc.,  208. 

alleged  to  have  suffered  in  both  natures,  as  God  as  well  as  man,  by 

Griffin,  215,  216. 

Cross  of,  the,  221. 

Church,  the,  down  to  a.d.  825,  shown  to  be  Unitarian,  228-248. 

Clayton,  Bp.,  on  obscurity  of  Scripture  touching  the  Trinity,  37. 

against  making  the  Trinity  "  a  rule  of  faith,"  ib. 

remarkable  speech  of,  extract  from,  ib. 

Clement  of  Alexandria — his  opinion  of  Christ,  229. 

Constantine,  the  Emperor,  enforces  the  Nicene  Creed,  248  ;  his  vacil- 
lating conduct,  ib. 

Constantius,  his  successor,  favors  the  Arians,  248  ;  persecuting  spirit 
of,  ib. 

Council  of  Xice,  245  ;  see  below  under  "  Creed." 

Council  of  Constantinople,  fixed  the  Personality  of  the  Spirit,  250. 

Council  of  Toledo,  decreed  the  procession  of  the  Spirit  from  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,  250. 

Council  of  Lateran,  the  4th,  completes  the  Trinity,  251. — Cudworth. 

Councils,  Jortin's  estimate  of,  239,  n. ;  great  numbers  in  4th  cent., 
248,  and  n. 

Creed,  of  Christ,  235  ;  St.  Peter,  236  ;  St.  Paul,  237  ;  Philip  the  dea- 
con, 238. 

•  the  Apostles' — see  "  Apostles'  Creed." 

of  Alexandria,  242,  n. 

Nicene,  the  original,  245 ;  analysis  of,  245,  246  ;  makes  the  Son, 

though  in  some  sense  God,  yet  derived,  and  therefore,  subordi- 
nate, ib.  ;  Gieseler  on,  247,  n. 

Cudworth  attests  the  Unitariauism  of  the  first  three  centuries,  232  ;  on 
the  4th  Council  of  Lateran,  251. 

Consubstantial,  Athanasius'  deiinition,  2o3  ;  Jortin's  account  of  the 
term,  ib.  :  Gibbon's,  ib.,  n. 


266  INDEX. 

D 

Denials,  Unitarian,  56,  258. 
Double  Nature  of  Christ,  126-132. 
Drift  or  tenor  of  Scripture,  what,  '74,  '76. 

E 

Episcopal  Church  of  U,  S.,  its  statement  of  the  Trinity,  16. 
■  its  alterations  of  the  English  Liturgy,  16,  n. 

on  Original  Sin,  149. 

Erasmus,  why  he  admitted  the  spurious  text,  1  John  5  :  7,  into  his 
third  ed,  of  the  Greek  Testament,  46-7. 


Father,  the,  the  One  and  only  Goi),  10,  11. 

frequency  of  the  title  applied  to  God,  13. 

only  object  of  Supreme  worship,  14. 

Fathers,  the  Ante-Niccue,  held  the  Son  to  be  subordinate,  228-232. 
Fundamental,  test  of  what  is,  41. 

G 

Gabriel,  the  Angel,  third  Person  of  the  Trinity,  according  to  Heber,  21. 
Gibbon,  the  Historian,  his  account  of  the  word  Consubstantial  or  in 

substance,  233,  n. 
"  Good  works"  essential,  190. 
Griffin,  Geo.  D.,  his  "  Sufferings  of  Christ,"  215  ;  maintains  that  Christ 

suffered  in  both  natures,  as  God  as  well  as  man,  216,  21Y  ;  God 

not  impassible,  217. 

U 

Hebrews,  Ep.  to  the,  specially  considered,  104,  et  seq.  ;  use  in  it  of  the 
arg.  ad  hominem,  195  ;  chief  source  of  the  reasoning  for  the  ex- 
piatory sacrifice  of  Christ,  ib. ;  alone,  of  all  the  epistles  attributed  to 
St.  Paul,  alludes  to  ('hrist's  priestly  office,  196  ;  grapples  specifi- 
cally with  Jewish  difficulties,  197. 

Holy  Ghost,  alleged  Personality  of,  133-141. 

alleged  Deity  of,  142-147. 

Human  Depravity,  actual,  denied  by  none,  157. 

Human  Nature,  orthodox  doctrine  of,  two  branches  of  the,  153, 

Unitarian  views  of,  155,  108-171. 


IXDEX.  267 

Human  Nature,  the  orthodox  view,  irreconcihible  with  God's  parental 
character,  155  ;  with  His  moral  character,  166  ;  not  humbling, 
168  ;  repulsive,  156 ;  contradicted  by  observation  and  experi- 
ence, 156  ;  unscriptural,  158,  166  ;  contrary  to  natural  feeling, 
etc.,  167  ;  alleged  descriptions  of,  from  Scripture,  mistakenly 
alleged,  160-3 ;  human  nature  and  human  character  different 
things,  160. 

Hypostatic  Union,  or  Double  Nature  of  Christ,  126-132. 


Identity  of  Christ  and  the  Father  began  to  be  taught  after  the  fourth 
century,  23-1. 

Impassibility,  the  Divine,  denied  by  George  G.  Griffin,  in  his  "  Suffer- 
ings of  Christ,"  in  order  to  obviate  the  Unitarian  objections  to  the 
alleged  infinity  of  the  Atonement,  214  ;  he  maintains  that  Christ 
suffered  in  both  natures,  215,  216, 

Interpretation,  principles  of,  58. 

Investigation,  thorough,  of  alleged  Scripture  doctrine,  what  it  sup- 
poses, 58,  65. 

Irengeus,  his  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Evangelists,  229. 


Jews,  their  tenacious  adherence  to  the  Divine  Unity,  66. 
Jortin,  on  the  opinions  of  the  Nicene  Fathers,  233  ;  on  Councils,  239,  n. 
John,  St.,  the  first. who  even  approximated  to  teaching  the  deity  of 
Christ,  according  to  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  etc.,  226-228. 
Jurieu,  the  French  Keformer,  on  the  Trinity — admissions  concerning, 
36. 

attests  the  Unitarianism  of  the  Fathers,  232. 

Justin  Martyr,  on  Christ's  deity,  229. 

L 

Lactantius  on  Christ,  230. 

Lewis,  Prof  Tayler,  on  Griffin's  "Sufferings  of  Christ,"  218,  n.  ;  be- 
lieves that  God  suffered,  218,  n. ;  longs  to  agree  with  Mr.  G., 
but  cannot,  220,  n. 

M 

Macknight  upon  Mark  13  :  32,  p.  12. 

Mn ukind  not  so  bad  as  often  i-epresented  by  theologians,  158. 


268  IXDEX. 

Merits,  saved  by  their  own — the  orthodox  allegation  that  Unitarians 

believe  they  are — Answered,  219-220. 
Michael,  the  Archangel,  second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  according  to 

Ileber,  21. 
Muenscher,  faith  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  232. 
Mystery,  remarks  on,  24-2G ;  mere,  no  objection  to  a  doctrine,  40. 

N 

Native  Depravity,  etc.,  the  old  doctrine  of,  traceable  to  Augustine,  152. 
Novatus'  opinion  of  Christ's  deity,  230. 

0 

Omniscience  disclaimed  by  our  Lord,  11,  79. 
Original  Sin,  defined  by  the  Episcopal  Church,  149. 

Presbyterian  Church,  149. 

Dr.  G.  Spring  on,  150,  151,  156-7. 

Prof.  Stuart,  Dr.  Taylor,  Chr.  Spectator  on,  151. 

Orthodox  views  of,  not  humbling  to  man,  168. 

Origen  on  John's  Gospel,  226  ;   on  Christ's  deity,  and  praying  to  him, 
230. 

P 

Patripassianism,  218,  n. 
Person,  on  the  word,  Baxter,  18. 

Sherlock,  19. 

Wallis,  19.  • 

South,  19,  31. 

Dr.  Hopkins,  19. 

Bp.  Waterland,  19  ;   Stuart,  Hopkins,  31. 

Platonic  Origin  of  the  Trinity,   26 ;    testimony  of  Norton,  Mosheim, 

Basnage,  Cudworth,  Horsley,  Milman,  27-29. 
Points  of  Agreement  between  all  Christian  believers,  187,  205. 
Plural  Pronouns,  use  of  in  0.  T.,  41  ;  pluralis  excellentice,  42. 
Presbyterian  Church,  its  statement  of  the  Trinity,  17;   on  Original 

Sin,  etc.,  149. 
Propitiation,  meaning  of  the  word,  192,  and  7i. ;   193. 

R 
Ram  Mohun  Roy,  case  of,  54. 

Reconciliation  of  men  to  God,  not  God  to  men,  the  doctrine  of  N.  T., 
206. 


INDEX.  269 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  its  pre-eminence  over  his  death,  according  to  St. 

Paul,  209. 
Roberts  Wm.,  case  of,  209. 
Rome,  Church  of,  holds  the  Trinity  on  Tradition,  34,  et  seq.,  52. 


S 

Sacrifices,  of  human  origin,  188  ;  the  Mosaic,  ritual  merely,  ib.  ; 
whole  efficacy  dependent  on  the  state  of  heart  of  him  who  offer- 
ed, ib. 

Salvation,  what,  209  ;  how  accomplished,  210-12. 

Scriptures,  appeal  to  the,  final,  39,  40,  41,  56,  58,  59,  188. 

Scripture,  what  is  meant  by  its  general  drift  or  tenor,  74,  75. 

Seabury,  Dr.,  (of  New-York,)  on  Rule  of  Faith  and  of  Tradition,  52,  53. 

Septuagint,  what,  69,  n. 

Servetus,  Michael,  252. 

Sin,  human,  how  accounted  for,  167-8. 

Smallridge,  Bp.,  admissions  of  the  unscripturalness  of  the  dogma  of 
the  Trinity,  37,  38. 

Socini,  the,  252. 

*'  Son  of  God,"  significance  of,  applied  to  Christ,  87. 

Sufferings  of  Christ  not  the  sole  means  of  Atonement  or  Reconcilia- 


Trinity,  the  word  when  first  used,  15  ;  not  in  Scripture,  53. 

doctrine  of,  variously  expounded,  18,  et  seq. ;  remarks  on,  22-3  ; 

which  exposition  the  true,  unknown,  22  ;  Rd.  Baxter's,  18  ;  Dr. 
South's,  18,  19  ;  Doolittle's,  18  ;  Bp.  Sherlock's,  19  ;  Dr.  Wal- 
lis's,  ib.  ;  Dr.  Hopkins',  ib.  ;  Bp.  Waterland's,  ib.  ;  Abp. 
Seeker's,  ib. ;  Bp.  Burnet's,  ib,  ;  Bp.  Gastrell's,  20 ;  Bp.  Bur- 
gess', ib.  ;  Bp.  Heber's,  ib.  ;  Dr.  Barrow's,  21 ;  Henry  Ward 
Beecher's,  ib. ;  Dr.  N.  Adams',  ib.  ;  Bp.  Clayton  on,  37  ;  Ju- 
rieu  on,  36  ;  Prof.  Huntington  on,  75,  n. ;  on  the  mystery  of 
the,  Bp.  Beveridge,  Bp.  Hurd,  Dr.  South,  24-5  ;  Platonic  ori- 
gin of  the,  26,  et  seq. ;  the  doctrine  not  to  be  proved  from 
0.  T.,  33  ;  not  plainly  taught  in  N.  T.  admitted  by  the  Fathers, 
32,  et  seq. ;  reserve  of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  concerning, 
32,  et  seq.,  91  et  seq.  ;  alike  admitted  by  learned  Romanists 


270  INDEX. 

and  Protestants,  35,  et  seq.,  91  ;  obscurity  of  Scripture  regard- 
ing, Protestant  acknowledgments  of,  36,  et  seq.  ;  unscriptural- 
ness  of,  Bps.  Smallridge  and  Clayton's  remarkable-  admissions 
of,  36-7  ;  a  matter  of  infei-ence,  38,  et  seq.  ;  admitted  to  be, 
by  some  Trinitariant,  of  note,  ib.  ;  cannot  be  stated  in  the  words 
of  Scripture,  40  ;  general  drift  of  Scripture  adverse  to,  51  ; 
not  stated  anywhere  in  N.  T."  according  to  Neander,  225  ;  only 
by  slow  degrees  brought  into  its  present  form,  30 ;  not  com- 
pleted till  4th  Council  of  Lateran,  251. 

Tenor  or  drift  of  Scripture,  what,  74-5. 

Tertullian's  Doctrine  of  Christ,  230  ;  first  uses  the  Latin  Trinitas, 
Trinity,  15,  244,  n. 

Theologj^,  Systematic,  what  it  is,  55. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch  first  uses  the  Greek  term  TQiag,  triad,  trinity, 
15,  244. 

Three  first  centuries  of  the  Church,  faith  of,  228,  et  seq. 

"  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,"  text  of  the,  considered,  44,  et  seq.  ; 
shown  to  be  an  imposture,  ib. ;  Avhy  Erasmus  admitted  it  into  his 
3d  ed.  of  N.  T.,  46-7. 

U 

Unity  of  GOD,  fundamental,  9,  10 ;  uniformly  taught  in  Scripture,  ad- 
mitted universally,  32. 

Unitarians,  charged  with  holding  mere  denials,  56  ;  their  hope  of  sal- 
vation rests  on  the  free  grace  and  love  of  God  in  Christ,  221. 

Unitarianism,  not  modern,  but  the  ancient,  primitive  faith,  the  Christ- 
ianity of  Christ,  223  ;  leading  doctrines  of,  can  be  stated  in  the 
very  words  of  Scripture,  224  ;  in  the  Arian  form,  the  established 
religion  of  the  Roman  Empire  for  nearly  half  a  century,  249  ; 
suffered  an  eclipse  in  7th  century,  251  ;  revived  with  the  Refor- 
mation, in  Germany,  Switzerland,  etc.,  ib.  ;  in  Geneva,  253  ;  de- 
fined, 224,  255,  et  seq.  ;  what  it  affirms,  255-7  ;  what  it  denies, 
258  ;  what  it  leaves  undetermined,  259  ;  how  it  regards  our  Lord's 
sufferings,  death,  sacrifice,  200-211,  221,  257. 


INDEX    OF    TEXTS. 
Old  Testament. 

Gen.   1  :  26  ;   11  :  ^7  ;  p.  41. 
6:5;  p.  160. 
Ps.  45  :  6,  7  ;  p.  101. 

51:5;  p.  160. 
Isa.  6:8;  p.  41. 
7:  14;  p.  67. 
9:6;  p.  68,  et  seq. 
Jerem.  17:9;  p.  160. 

23  :  5,  6  ;  p.  71. 

New  Testament. 

Matthew    3:16,  17  ;  p.  43. 

24:  36;  pp.  11,  94. 
28  :  19  ;  p.  43. 
Mark     1:  10,  11  ;  p.  43. 

13  :  32;  pp.  11,  et  seq.,  and  79. 

Luke     3  :  21,  22  ;  p.  43. 

John     1  :  1-5  ;  p.  Ill,  et  seq. 
3,  5;  p.  163. 
58  ;  p.  105,  et  seq. 
10  :  30  ;  p.  85. 

14  :  9,  10  ;  p.  109. 
17  :  3  ;  p.  75. 

20  :  13  ;  p.  93. 

20  :  28  ;  p.  88,  et  seq. 

Acts     20  :  28  ;  p.  94. 

Romans     1,  p.  159. 

1  :  3,  4;  9  :  3,  5 ;  pp.  126-7. 
3  :  25  ;  p.  192. 
5:9;  p.  102  and  n. 
5  :  10  ;  p.  193. 
5  :  11  ;  p.  205. 


272  INDEX. 


Romans 

5 
9 

9: 

:  12;  p.  163. 

:  3,  5  ;  pp.  126-7. 

:  5  ;  p.  95,  et  seq. 

1  Corinthians 

14 

:  20;  p.  159. 

Ephesians 

5  : 

2;  p.  197. 

Philippians 

2: 

4: 

6  ;  pp.  23,  n.  ;  107. 
18  ;  p.  197. 

1  Timothy 

3: 

16  ;  p.  98. 

Hebrews 

1: 

5  : 
9  : 
9: 
9: 
10 

;  8  ;  p.  100. 

7  ;  p.  196. 
;  1,  8,  9,  13,  14  ;  p.  19£ 

5  ;  p-.  192. 

22  ;  p.  197. 

:  11  ;  p.  198. 

1  John 

3  : 
5: 
5: 

16  ;  p.  105. 
7  ;  p.  44-50. 
20,  21  ;  p.  102,  et  seq. 

( 

T 

exp 

DATE    DUE 

prr 

El«k    ••»    J'^ 

1    ■"h''^? 

1 

DiiC- 

■  iLOOsi 

..-.-  .s. 

^#^ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A.       i 

938.7 


-r^2^ 


-<^$ 

€# 


